Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyhigh Networks

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyhigh Networks

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

My PROD here still applies since none of the concerns have actually been acknowledged, considered and then taken to serious mind, instead additional sources were added, but this is still exactly what the PROD covered and mentioned, it's all PR for a company that involves itself with PR and that's not surprising given this was clearly another company-influenced article as part of its PR campaign, therefore there are no changes that can be made genuinely if this is an advertisement and solely that. Looking at the simply tossed stacks of links, they all still actually confirm what this article is, PR for the company, since the articles all themselves consist of republished company PR, interviews with the people or company itself where business and clients & investors plans and everything else the company would say about itself, therefore it's not the same thing at all to simply toss some links and hope they get accepted since they come from a news source, since that's not convincing at all and it's likely not convincing to the IP themselves since they simply tossed it, actually making the article's advertising environment worse. SwisterTwister talk 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom I find the sources similarly unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Rajiv Gupta (technocrat). That article is pretty weak too, but the personality I would say has a slightly better case of being notable. Clearly all the promotional stuff is just that. Either split or re-create when the company has enough independent sources, perhaps. W Nowicki (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did some work on the Gupta article. I think a case for his notability is much easier to argue. Almost every source for the company also mentions him. Maybe if the company outlasts the CEO, it might be notable. The court case is hard to call. I would be happy with a delete now. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing here worth merging elsewhere; it's pretty run-of-the-mill marketing cruft. The court case certainly isn't independently notable, and I think it's listed there for WP:PEACOCK purposes more than anything. FalconK (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam; an unremarkable security company. With sections such as "Recognition" this is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. The article Rajiv Gupta (technocrat) does not assert much notability beyond being the founder of Skyhigh; I'm not sure it would survive if this article is deleted. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:24, 9 October 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.