Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signifyd

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 draftify to AFC. (non-admin closure) ミラP 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Signifyd (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)

Non notable company with sources that do not establish notability. Article in its current state only promotes the company. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. CatcherStorm ^talk 05:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 05:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify through AfC/Delete The eWEEK profile is a fairly in-depth profile of this company and may qualify as one (1) source, though I do have my doubts because of the way in which the profile was written. Likewise, the Inc. article is a similarly in-depth article about the company and its products. It's at least, conceivable, this company could pass WP:GNG, though I have strong doubts that it would. Nevertheless, there just isn't likely enough significant coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, it's a WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH fail. That being said, because it's not the worst of the corporate spam, I've seen, I would be supportive of allowing draftification of this article into non-indexed Draft: namespace and have it go through AfC to provide for a more thorough evaluation. Doug Mehus T·C 05:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I too like the idea of sending this to AfC. The vast majority of the subject's coverage is WP:ROUTINE or from not fully reliable sources. However, there are some mentions in reliable sources that are in that awkward grey area between trivial and significant. Pushing this to AfC can put the burden wholly on the page creator to prove neutrality and notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sulfurboy, Yes, I personally wish we'd use AfC both at AfD and DRV more often. How come no bolded !vote, though? ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 06:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dmehus, Done Sulfurboy (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sulfurboy, No worries. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus !vote rationale. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify through AfC per Doug Mehus.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  4meter4, It's nice to have concurrence from you; I know you and I have disagreed at AfD in the past...a Kansas City Blue Cross Blue Shield Association AfD as I recall. Doug Mehus T·C 01:03, 29 February 2020 (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.