Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codeproof

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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codeproof

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company (almost no 3rd party coverage) written mainly by a COI editor. It's struggled with promotional content since its inception and is currently effectively a promotion. Cleanup tags unresolved since Jan. 2016. Nominated here because my WP:PROD was contested by the COI editor. FalconK (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find sources to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Redmond Reporter interview is the longest source out there, but it's free a weekly community newsletter with a circ of about 25,000, which gives it little weight, per WP:AUD. Interviews are also poor for notability in general. This GeekWire puff is slightly broader, but it's super softball: less an interview and more a platform for the founder's musings on the industry. It's also a column which invites any startup in the region to "Apply for Startup Spotlight" which undermines any claim of neutrality. I looked, but found nothing better. Grayfell (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a improved article here in my sandbox. I have added genuine third-party references and more. Please provide me feedback. i look forward to working with community. Shilpacs (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources all listed, including in the Draft linked above, are all still published-republished company advertising and it's clear since they all have the same focused consistency, therefore only one person authored that and it's the company, this is also quite clear speedy material, so that says a lot as it is. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SwisterTwister: The sources mentioned in the article are not advertisement. They are from a neutral third-party genuine sources. Are you saying we can't have this article anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shilpacs (talk • contribs) 17:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a small firm (the Redmond Reporter reference indicated founder plus one sales employee in 2014) edited by at least one WP:COI account. (The article lacks the necessary WP:DISCLOSE by each such account.) The sources in the current article are a combination of primary plus local. Those in the Draft are better (though its promotional text is more appropriate for the company website where they can sell their wares) but are still routine appointment announcement and product announcements/reviews. Clearly enough to verify that this is a firm going about its business in its chosen field, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that it is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No indications to establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AllyD: Codeproof software is completely "online" and company has built a great contents around mobile device management and mobile security area since 2011. You can see the blogs at http://blog.codeproof.com and http://www.codeproof.com/blog . i honestly think that Codeproof deserves a recognization for their contributions to internet. This Wiki article page exists since about 4 years now. Do you really want to delete it now? I personally have a great respect for Wikipedia and it's community. I am hoping to improve the article and make it even better. Shilpacs (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails WP:GNG (and those blogs don't help to establish notability - see WP:RS) then it should be deleted. Try to find some independent secondary sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:14, 19 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.