[go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecurityScorecard (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Sourcing has been found to be of insufficient depth and independence Star Mississippi 17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard

edit
AfDs for this article:

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

SecurityScorecard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated recently after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SecurityScorecard, notability of the company has not meaningfully changed since.

The new version of the article does have more references, however there is still not significant coverage of the company. The Bloomberg article is the most persuasive, however a company closing one significant deal does not clear the WP:NCORP bar. The remaining mentions are all trivial. Brandon (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
"Canada Will Use Letter Grades to Assess Companies' Cyber Resilience". Bloomberg.com. 2024-01-11.
 Yes Yes Yes
Yes No No Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: capital transaction Yes
Yes No No Trivial mention of SecureScorecard as an example of a streaming data pipeline Yes
Yes Yes No Yes
Maundrill, Beth (2023-12-01). "How TUI Group Strengthened its Third-Party Risk Management". Infosecurity Magazine.
 Yes No No No Customer testimonial
Pasternack, Alex (March 3, 2023). "10 Most Innovative Companies in Security of 2023". Fast Company.
 Yes Yes No WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" Yes
Gallagher, Sean (2015-09-11). "MIT ranks high in bad security at major universities". Ars Technica.
 Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of MIT, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Yes Yes No Article is about the security posture of the US government, no significant coverage of the company itself Yes
Delete per nom. OhHaiMark (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bloomberg, Fastcompany, Atstechnica, and CyberExpress together are good enough for me. Better Nuncio (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources almost exclusively only provide trivial coverage of the company, I've added a source assessment table to demonstrate this. For example, the Fast Company article is a textbook example of WP:ORGTRIV: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists." Brandon (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as article's AfC reviewer. I am withdrawing my decision, and keeping this open to others' input. While I originally thought this might have been a pretty good article, I understand the other viewpoints. I give partial support to remove this article per WP:ORGTRIV, which I think is a viable reason. OnlyNanotalk 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - The company is covered in tons of sources and even several pages of books if you search on Google. The venture beat articles look like funding notices but the articles are quite in depth and I think Bloomberg along with plenty of sources online make this a very notable company. SunnyScion (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the Bloomberg and Fast Company sources. Both provide WP:SIGCOV of the company. The Fast Company source is a list, but it's not an ORGTRIV-excluded list; it includes several paragraphs of discussion about the company. I'm not sure an adequate WP:BEFORE search was done, either, as there are many SIGCOV sources not included in the article; see Bloomberg BusinessWeek, CFO magazine, eWeek, and Risk Management magazine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see more than enough sources, several of which were highlighted in the table. Bloomberg is pretty significant coverage, at least to me. SirMemeGod  21:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:ORGTRIV says inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, not inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, but it'll be OK if the listicle has a bit of text about the company,. Literally every single listicle will have enough content by that metric, because they will all introduce each of the subjects with a paragraph or two of waffle. What is lacking, is any actual evaluation or analysis, any secondary content beyond the routine, run-of-the-mill "about us" text that is included in literally every single other listicle of dozens of companies. As for the other Bloomberg article, I cannot positively identify which one is referred to since there is no bibliographic information given and the link used is a session link that is useless unless we're on the same computer (and has no doubt expired regardless) but the only other Bloomberg article I could find in Business Source Complete or Business Source Ultimate is AN 150764891, also available from Yahoo, or Bloomberg directly (Sebenius, Alyza (8 June 2021). "JBS Hackers Took Data From Australia and Brazil, Researcher Says". Bloomberg.com.). Said article is one of those where the company in question comments on a few things, there is virtually no content about the company itself. It does not in any way even approach ORGDEPTH, there is no need to ask about ORGIND. As for the WP:TRADES articles mentioned, there is zero explaination why they overcome the presumption against independence. An example of the coverage in eWeek Kerner, Sean Michael (11 February 2016). "SecurityScorecard Detects, Rates Security of Third-Party Suppliers". eWeek. TechnologyAdvice, LLC. ISSN 1530-6283 – via EBSCO, AN 112958089., which is the exact type of WP:SPIP that we have WP:TRADES exclude. All in all, I'm not sure it's really appropriate to cast stones about anbody else's BEFORE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Ebsco permalinks so they should work if logged in via the Wikipedia Library, but here are the references if you want to look them up:
    • "A Heightened State Of Security." By: Chapman, Lizette, Bloomberg Businessweek, 00077135, 3/13/2017, Issue 4514
    • "Keeping Score". By: Katz, David M. CFO. Apr2017, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p29-30. 2p.
    • "Cyber Scorekeepers". By: Banham, Russ. Risk Management. Nov2017, Vol. 64 Issue 10, p26-29. 3p.
    • You found the eWeek article. eWeek is not a WP:TRADES publication, it's a more general business technology publication (a la Infoworld or Wired). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is very odd. Are you sure you are getting the permalinks by clicking the "Permalink" button? Because the link it generates should always include the accession number with the proxy login, for example, either https://wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login?auth=production&url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=121701140&site=eds-live&scope=site or https://search-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=121701140&site=eds-live&scope=site. The link would not work otherwise, and if EBSCO is generating an invalid link that should probably be reported. Also, eWeek is absolutely a trade magazine owned by a marketing company, I'm really not sure what to say about that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The subject has tons of sources that do not appear in the reference list. I'm certain there is enough material to establish notability. I suggest keeping and improving this article.DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Plenty of their rankings that get coverage, there isn't anything about the company that isn't a PR item that I see in my search. The table above/below my comment seems to sum up the sources. We just don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There appears to be some fundamental misunderstanding as to what sources we require to ascertain notability of companies/organizations. Because the topic is a company, the appropriate guidelines are GNG/WP:NCORP which requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "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. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the Keep !voters have identified the parts of the sources which are in-depth "Independent Content". I won't repeat the discussion of sources but, just by way of examples, some editors saying meets the criteria. No, here's why. That Bloomburg article only repeats this Press Release from the company on the same day - that isn't "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND. Or others mention the Bloomberg Businessweek article "A Heightened State of Security" from 2017. Again, no. Leaving aside the information directly attributed to the co-founder, we're left with a single (generic description) sentence which clearly falls short of the requirement for in-depth content. HighKing++ 11:34, 30 September 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SecurityScorecard_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1249191700"