Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid7 (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 redirect to Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid7 (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 pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile. Light2021 (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt as especially for advertising, note this has literally been deleted 3 times in the past few years, including the 2013 AfD itself, since 2013 was still a troublesome where advertisements were still noticeably accepted and not deleted as they should've; therefore, it's not surprising that not only the 1 involved account was an advertising-only account tied to another, now both kicked, this article's contents are all still PR advertising, none of it coming close to actual substance, and we shouldn't expect any since the actual author was an advertising-only account.

When we start accepting such blatancy and question whether company-initiated advertising is compromisable, we're damned as an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- it looks like the company could be notable, given that it's public, but I was unable to find any sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps too soon (as shown by the relatively low revenue of $100M). K.e.coffman (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: inexplicably the article doesn't mention their best known product, Metasploit which is one of the most widely-used tools of its type. Of course just because Metasploit is notable, it doesn't infer notability on Rapid7 but IMO it makes it worth keeping.. just. Shritwod (talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Metasploit then; this would preserve the article history and could be reverted to a stand-alone article should the company become more notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Redirect makes sense. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT. Between 2010 and now, this page has been deleted three times and keeps on coming back. Article is purely promotional, company is just not notable and fails WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:12, 22 November 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.