Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egress Software

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 no consensus. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egress Software

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional page mostly sourced to the organisation's website with little to no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've reverted the edits made by a COI editor as noted by the nom.; and there's sufficient sourcing in the article for a keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "sufficient sourcing" - *each* source must meet NCORP criteria. Can you link to any reference that meets NCORP please? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NCORP based on the Telegraph coverage and coverage in the Sheffield Star. Also the BCS prize indicates notability. FOARP (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Telegraph coverage might pass CORPDEPTH but fails ORGIND. The BCS prize is non-notable and the article announcing it fails CORPDEPTH. Neither of those references meet WP:NCORP which is the applicable guideline for companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I disagree. While I don't think wp:3refs is nessesarily a good litmus test for notability I do think that there needs to be more than one piece of wp:sigcov. I've read the star piece and it mainly consists of direct quotes from the organisation itself with little or no independent analysis given. Therefore, I am struggling to see how the Star piece counts as independent, secondary or significant coverage. WP:NCORP does say that "any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism)" is a dependent source even if it appears in an independent source. Which brings me on to the Telegraph piece, the piece seems quite short and seems to report on a single event - a relatively small funding round from a US investor. Again, I can't see any deeper analysis, there's a lot of direct quotes and I think it's likely that the piece is based on a press release. Finally, the award might meet the alternative notablity criteria for businesses if Wikipedia had an alternative criteria for businesses but currently it doesn't - "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." The only way an award would create notability for a company is if there was independent press coverage of the award which as far as I am aware there isn't. Therefore, I still think this article doesn't belong here.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~nominators don't !vote again, striking !vote See my comment above.ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Having a COI editor does not totally disqualify a subject from notability, just means we need to work on the article. There are several more sources one can find that are not press releases. Agree that the usual product guide is not enough and could even be reduced from what it is. The "award" is not something like a Nobel prize nor even a Turing Award, so not enough either, but should be kept as a mention in neutral tone. W Nowicki (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi W Nowicki, you say that there are "several more sources one can find" - can you link to any that meets NCORP please? HighKing⁺⁺ 14:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that there is enough totality of coverage for me to subjectively think the company should have an article. Do not feel strongly enough to spend more time, so consensus is fine. W Nowicki (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I've asked you to back up your assertion with a couple of links doesn't make me a deletionist and your should WP:AGF. Notable too that you didn't/couldn't link to anything. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria. The references in the article (excluding obvious primary sources, company listings and "search results) and the ones mentioned in this AfD fail NCORP as follows:
- BCS.org lists the 2011 Technology Excellence awards. The company is provided with a mention-in-passing for winning "Security Innovationn of the Year". It is a non-notable award. References fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- Telegraph reference is based entirely on this Press Release and the announcement is repeated (sometimes verbatim) in countless other articles, none of which meet WP:ORGIND criteria.
- Silicon Angle reference is also based entirely on a company press release and the same article also can be found in lots of other articles all of which fail WP:ORGIND
- cafcass reference is a page entitled "FAQs: Advice for recipients of Egress emails" to explain to their subscribers that "Cafcass uses Egress" and explains the why/how and GDPR implications. There is no in-depth information on the topic company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- CESG website lists one of the products as being CPE certified. No in-depth info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- NCSC website provide product details on a certified product, no in-depth info on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Really a company is more about product, and this is known for its product. While the nom. correctly idenitified a COI additions I've spent my time fixing, and quite frankly getting very worried about the nature of contributions of the nominator, and luckily an admin spotted it too. I've not any energy left and I'll probably get bludgeoned to death for this !vote. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability criteria requires references that meet NCORP. Getting rid of COI additions is great but can you point to any references that meet NCORP??? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in a guideline. This is as much about WP:PRODUCT as it is about the company, and the certifications of the security product are extremely relevant, let alone the product award. As such product certification is important from a technical perspective, as is Awards and stuff mentioned above. Which ae extremely significant, whihc is why stuff like this is important [1] and might be why the nom. targetted this article, before targetting an individual a few edits later and returning here to disrupt. So all the COREDEPTH arguments are all up the wrong street. In technical stuff this references that are expected to be seen to be significant. Plus the NSCS recertification: [2]. Stuart Summer interview here is alos significant. [3]. That's probably not the best three sources but I'm kind of tired and mentally done in the non-productive bludgeoning.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond but describing a single question/challenge as "non-productive bludgeoning" is stretching things don't you think? You've pointed to WP:PRODUCT but totally mangled the purpose of that section which is designed to determine whether a product meets the criteria for notability and not, as you appear to think, to infer notability of the company from coverage of a product. If the product is notable in its own right, then we can have an article on the product. The very first sentence of NCORP says the purpose is to check whether the topic is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service. The section you reference, WP:PRODUCT, says If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, so we need to first of all determine the notability of the *company* (not the product). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search on Google Scholar and Books proves the company's product is notable. However, the company itself does not pass WP:NCORP. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Product=Brand=Company quite often, it tends to be the case for e.g. Oracle, and its the same for this. Someone isn't going to get hospital visit if I keep coming back here. And its why this should be a keep. You see the cases where notable product A and notable Product B are from the same compny, so its merged into the same article and then that's up for deletion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2021 (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.