Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alert Logic (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ...and a comment to the editors who actually work for the company: please read WP:COI. You should not be the people writing this article. If it is worth writing about, other uninvolved editors will do so. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article on a small privately-held company. Having removed the dozen or more self-references, what's left is a small number of press releases printed in the trade press. There are no substantive sources about the company. The article has a long history of promotional editing. It's been here nearly ten years and it still lacks any sources to establish WP:GNG. I think by now it's unlikely that it ever will have such sources. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. I apologize about the self-references as it is legitimate information being added to the page, I was under the impression we could cite our own website but since this is my first time doing a Wikipedia edit i was unaware. We have tried to remain neutral on our approach to updating our Wikipedia page just citing where we received our information from. I can adjust citing accordingly if need be. Let me know what steps we can take to avoid having this article deleted. Thank you. --Jharrelson (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC) — Jharrelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep (moderate) Getting information about private companies is one of the great conundrums in business research. While I was getting my Library & Information Studies MS degree, I interned at Lippincott Library for the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. I can tell you that getting information about private companies was not easy then & is not easy now. Private companies simply do not have to disclose much about themselves.

That said, I do think that Alert Logic is notable in computer security. I think that there are enough non-primary & non-press release articles to reference an article. It is never going to be a good article while the company is private, but then we don't delete articles because they are stub or start class.

Here is a list of news articles about Alert Logic. Yeah, there's probably about 5% that are usable as references once you winnow through them. That's not much, but I think there is enough to establish notability.

"alert logic" -site:alertlogic.com - Google News Search

Peaceray (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:PROMO; advertorial content on an unremarkable small company. The article has a history of SPA (possibly COI) editing, followed by reverts of promotional material. Rather than continue to waste volunteer editors' time trying to maintain neutrality of the article, I recommend deletion. Sourcing is weak to meet GNG anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Outside press releases, the only coverage is of it acquiring another company and being acquired. Business as usual. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it stands and probably salt until a convincing article can be written - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• We are currently working on getting this page rectified so that it is in accordance with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines and make sure that it does not meet WP:PROMO issues. Please do not delete. Any suggestions would greatly be appreciated so we may not lose our article. Thank you. Jharrelson (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Jharrelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• We have updated this page in accordance with Wikipedia Notability Guidelines, and have tried avoid running into any WP:PROMO issues. further suggestions would greatly be appreciated if you think any additional compliance measures should be taken. Thank you for your patience. Jake.orlando (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Jake.orlando (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Comment -- still reads as WP:PROMO and does not add value to the encyclopedia. I'm not changing my "delete" vote. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Please review revision 738257925 as the user JzG has reverted back to his version that is not accurate. Version 738257925 has notable references and looks to be neutral but I will leave that to the admins to decide. Please provide the us requesting to make the changes suggestions on what we can do to improve the quality of the page. We have added the request for change in the page's talk tab per WP:COI but have not received any feedback and we're request number 152 in a queue that dates back to mid 2015. We're trying to follow Wikipedia guidelines but we have not received any help form any community members outside of Peaceray. We've been researching as people post issues but we're kind of learning Wikipedia backwards and trying to stay within guidelines. So again any help or recommendations on how to improve the quality of the article so we can keep our company page would be great. Thank You. Jharrelson (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, I know what constitutes reliable sources, and I also know what constitutes promotional editing (which your edits were). Guy (Help!) 15:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated. Right now Network world, BBC News, Bloomberg, Info World and the Houston Business Journal are listed as reliable or neutral sources. Should those be removed?  Also, can you point to which section or piece of information comes across as "promotional editing" so we can remove that as well in an effort to make the page where it provides value to Wikipedia readers and follows Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your time and feedback. Jharrelson (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.