Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fortanix

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. @Groovy12: If you wish to have a copy of this to work on it in your userspace until notability can be established, leave me a message. SoWhy 07:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortanix (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)

Was dePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: It might have some references but Wikipedia is not a company listing site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Start-up funding announcements and brief proposition coverage are insufficient to demonstrate attained encyclopaedic notability. My searches are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Kudpung correctly points out, Wikipedia is not a business directory. The sourcing that is available is not enough to make an article out of because the subject fails WP:CORPDEPTH in all of its coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- run-of-the-mill cloud security company, of which there are dozens. Nothing stands out about this one. Wikipedia is not a directory listing of funding news for unremarkable startups; K.e.coffman (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I authored the article because the company is building tools for Intel SGX, a major breakthrough in computer security (https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/086.pdf). Google for more details. Fortanix itself is legit company because of funding event. WP:CORPDEPTH is provided by - WSJ, Intellyx, Foundation, finSME. These reports are spread over months and point to different stories. Additionally, keeping Fortanix article will be useful for people looking for info and consistent with keeping other articles such as Advania, Bracket Computing, Compose.io, iland, Firebase, ForgeRock, HashiCorp, Loader.io, Lunacloud, mLab. These are all in same category and reported with same level of coverage. Groovy12 (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Th sources you cite above are all brief reports of the same thing. That is not in-depth, independent, coverage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, please take another look at Intellyx. It's unrelated to the briefing and appeared in Feb. Also, Foundation is in-depth. Again, if I apply the same standard as other articles, this could be considered WP:CORPDEPTH. Groovy12 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy12, you are the creator of this article, right? This is a listing entry. That's not what Wikipedia is for. You can have a hundred sources and it's still a listing. It doesn't make a claim to anything that justifies an entry in an encyclopedia. The article itself has no CORPDEPTH. The company just isn't important. It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence - that's not what Wikipedia is for either. We don't take other articles into consideration - perhaps they should be deleted too: WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, yes, obviously I created the article. I take offense with your statement "It's only important to the person who wants to increase that company's market presence" that insinuates I have some ulterior motive. I've been contributing (both content and $$) to wikipedia for at least last 10 years. Obviously, you and other admins volunteer much more time and energy than me to this cause and I applaud you for that. But, this experience has been bitter.

If the company is worth an article, which obviously I believe, I'm doing useful work to humanity even if I create a small page on the company. Others can and should subsequently contribute to it. I feel that you seem to have made your mind that this article shouldn't exist and have been finding new reasons for that

   - in the beginning, you said it's not enough references. I added them.
   - then, you said it's just a listing. I explained why Intel SGX is a big deal and this is legit company. I added how similar coverage has been enough for other companies.
   - then, you said the references all point to same event. I explained why that's not the case.
   - now, you are saying the articles for other companies also shouldn't exist.
   - now, you are questioning my motivation.

For someone like me who is not really entrenched in daily discussions on wikipedia, I may not understand all the nuances of being encyclopedia noteworthy. It's far easier for me to see it in practice and apply the same standard to new page. I applied that standard and it met the bar and I started contributing.

If you simply didnt want this article to exist, you should have said so in the beginning. It'd have saved me time and frustration. But, instead you progressively kept adding new bars.

I have said all I need to on this topic. You guys decide whether to keep and enhance or delete the article. In any case, I'll keep being active and contribute to other pages, but will not opine anymore on this topic. Groovy12 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable yet. The author might consider moving it into personal space, and waiting until it gets more notice from independent sources. Wikipedia is not a startup directory. W Nowicki (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no independent secondary sources available for this topic that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I cannot access this wsj article so I cannot comment, but I note that it was written on the same date (June 14 2017) as the PR announcement was released by the company and on the same topic. This intellyz article fails WP:ORGIND as it is company-generated PR. The webpage even helpfully states "To be considered for a Brain Candy article, email us at ...". This foundationcapital article is not "intellectually independent" and fails WP:ORGIND since it was written by one of their investors. Finally, this finsmes article fails WP:ORGIND for the same reason at it is a PR announcement. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 17 July 2017 (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.