Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SentinelOne

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SentinelOne

[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)

Non notable and promotional. The various listings as "visionary" all derive from the same source:PR. The other references are just routine financing and similar., and do not satisfy WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a surprisingly large number of references in this Google Scholar search Perhaps an article could be built using the Google Scholar references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Did you find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to not have any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep found what appears to be an independent review. Seems to be [some citing] of its analysis of attacks on its website, other cites do that also. This article may look interesting but I dont have access. May be WP:TOOSOON. Dont care for the promotional aspects.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Response This review in scmagazine is a review of a product and not the company. The topic is the company and the article contains no information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The ieee.org citation is actually citing a blog post by Sentinal One and this fails WP:RS as well providing no information on the company thereby also failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Similarly, the "interesting paper" only mentions SentinalOne in the context of Application programming interface (API) calls, often used to characterize the behavior of a program, are a common input choice for a classifier and used by products such as SentinelOne. and Some real-world next generation antimalware products (such as SentinelOne) are hybrid classifiers and are therefore mentions-in-passing and also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. A highly promotional piece on an un-and-coming company that has not achieved anything significant just yet (apart from raising venture funding). That's an insufficient claim of significance. Sources is mostly routine funding news and / or WP:SPIP. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2018 (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.