Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netskope

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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 20:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netskope

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP. UPE/Agency article. References are routine annoucements, press-releases, patents, funding news, Non-RS links, Forbes contributors. Fails WP:SIRS, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, all we have are funding announcements and PR stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Netskope has been named a Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud Access Security Brokers and made the Forbes Cloud 100 list." is hardly "PR stuff". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: As it is a company WP:NCORP applies. There is many companies that are leaders in their particularly field, but unless they have coverage that proves that, that they are notable, then they are not notable All the coverage here, all of it, is generated by the company in one form or another, as a startup. All that kind of self-generated coverage is explicitly forbidden by NCORP. NCORP was rewritten about 4-5 years ago to exclude these types of coverage, because it is self-generated. There is no WP:SECONDARY sourcing here. I'll go through the references and I will show you. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a paid editor working on behalf of Netskope, I would like to contest the removal of the Netskope article because multiple sources meet the WP:SIRS criteria. At least half of the citations include more than funding-round or press release information. I also have additional, new sources that I believe are relevant to suggest on the Talk:Netskope page. DebSchell (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first 15 references as its a good round number:

Ref 1 [1]] The cloud 100 presented by Salesforce. Corporate produced Forbes document that profiles each company. States on the article, its an advertisement. Non-RS.
Ref 2 [2] Routine funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, specifically, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, Funding news.
Ref 3 Magic quadrant. A Gartner produced document, prepared by extensive interviews by the company and the software. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4 [3] Techcrunch. Says it all. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Routine funding news.
Ref 5 Dead link.
Ref 6 [4] I don't it is significant. "Earlier this month, Netskope came out of stealth mode with $21 million in funding to combat shadow IT". Two sentences is a passing mentions, failing WP:SIRS as not significant.
Ref 7 [5] Job fulfillment annoucement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
Ref 8 [6] Non-RS Forbes contributor. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 9 [7] Dead link. Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Expansion.
Ref 10, 11 are patent information, which is NON-RS. They are WP:SPS sources.
Ref 12 [8] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 13 [9] Annoucement of aquasitions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Ref 14 [10] Same press-release as ref 13.
Ref 15 Patent information, which is NON-RS.

Of the 15 references. 8 are routine funding news, 1 is plain advertisement, 1 is Forbes contributor site (Non-RS), 1 dead-link, 3 are patent information is non-RS. No patents on Wikipedia. It is a WP:SPS source, which is 14 out of the 15. The last one the Garner Magic Quadrant, which fails WP:ORGIND, as its due process at work and can't happen without massive input from the company. None of these references pass WP:SIRS. It is typical of startup, created by paid staff. It fails the WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 23:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH; sourcing is in passing, routine notices (fundraising, etc), rewarmed press releases, and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with Scope creep's assessment of the sources above, and the remaining sources are much the same. The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Even if we accept the "Cloud 100" piece at face value as contributing towards notability (which is debatable), it's a moot point because it does nothing on its own; the article needs multiple reliable sources and it quite simply does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION (reads like a brochure throughout) and doesn't meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:16, 18 December 2022 (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.