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.
Delete per non-reliable and not in-depth run-on-the-mill (WP:MILL) coverage not sufficient for WP:NCORP. Actually, WP:TOOSOON and WP:COI 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
includes non-trivial deep and significant coverage, including multiple company profiles in major english-speaking media i.e. Tech Crunch, Times of Isreal, Israel Hayoum, etc. keepTheWarOfArt (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Quality information on a relatively young page.
Charlie doesnt know (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any independent coverage, it all seems to be either press releases or based on press releases; eg the Tech Crunch source which almost entirely consists of statements from the company or its partners.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I DISAGREE, why should this page be deleted? its under editing work and contains the fact of a company born to do good in this world. 77.137.65.11 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no sources that I can find for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
do you not view the Times of Israel, Globes, and Israel Hayom as reliable? As you can see, Wikipedia has deemed them to be notable. If you think edits would be appropriate, make the edits. I don't understand the deletionism here. TheWarOfArt (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up how sources/references are used for two different purposes. References used for any purpose including supporting facts/information within an article must be reliable sources in which case we take a close look at the publisher and the author. But for the purposes of establishing notabiliy, we essentially evaluate the *content* to make sure the article meets the criteria. The Times of Israel article is a promo piece which relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and their partners - this fails ORGIND. The Globes piece contains one single sentence which mentions the company - that is neither significant nor in-depth, fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Israel Hayon piece reports that the topic company won a non-notable award and relies entirely on this Press Release, fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify changing to Weak Delete or Draftify after Tim located the Frost&Sullivan report below. Still can't locate a 2nd source though at this time. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) where *each* reference contains deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and 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. I have been unable to find any references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Times of Israel article is a promo piece which relies *entirely* on information provided by the company and their partners" what are you basing this on? "the Globes piece contains one single sentence which mentions the company - that is neither significant nor in-depth" the Globes piece is 500 words and several paragraphs, all on the company. Could you please elaborate? TheWarOfArt (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is an advertorial, there's nothing in that article which isn't directly attributed to the company or their execs or their customers and there's no evidence that the journalist is making any comments based on their own "Independent" research/analysis or fact checking. Similar story with the Globes articles. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note how NCORP is worded: The source must be completely independent of the article subject. Extensive quoting from the subject, or repetition of their words without much analysis, fails this criterion. Ovinus (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This company is only four years old and is not built on existing companies or units, so if it isn't found to be notable that outcome would make intuitive sense. Still, our decisions need to be data driven. Reading through the article and the AfD, there is one very strong SIGCOV source, written and signed by the technology correspondent of Globes that the delete sayers seem to sidestep. It might not be sufficient for a keep, and that's ok, but the delete sayers should clarify what they mean when they say there is no SIGCOV in RS. gidonb (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my response above. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still !delete, there is not enough significant coverage in RS. I'm not arguing over semantics. My reasoning for delete stands. We need to see multiple, substantive coverage is RS before we can even consider keeping the article, this isn't there yet. Please don't ping me every time you get an answer you don't like. It doesn't change my decision and makes an even stronger case for my !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, but you do recognize this as a valid (albeit insufficient) source that counts toward notability, right? gidonb (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you still don't have enough for the article to be kept. Please don't keep harping over one decent source, it's not enough and a long way from GNG. Again, please don't ping me for silly stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, you totally distort my words. By 180 degrees! As strongly implied in my comment, I lean towards delete. I'm trying to make sure that nothing has changed in the appreciation of Israeli quality press. I continue to receive evasive answers, which was my concern from the get-go. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've already said the source was fine. We can't keep the article for a lack of those. Thanks for pinging me after I've asked you not to. Please stop. Oaktree b (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 20:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage from TechCrunch and The Times of Israel meets the bare minimum of at least two independent sources with in-depth coverage. And international to boot. The Globes piece about the top #10 ranking is almost as good, and includes some additional profile info. The Frost and Sullivan report has a nice write-up from a notable analyst, which I've seen at previous AfDs as some people's criteria for notability. The Insider and Time sources are just brief quotes, but show that the company's employees are recognized and sought out as thought leaders by the media. There's absolutely no precedent or consensus for saying that if a press release spurs coverage, and the media does additional reporting, including interviews, that somehow disqualifies the resultant article in a notability discussion. That's a lazy argument to make, and completely ignores the role of media relations in getting media coverage. Something has to get the reporter's attention. I will argue this meets WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ORGIND. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 06:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Frost and Sullivan article meets the criteria for establishing notability, thanks for finding that. Your comment (which you've repeated in various forms at multiple AfDs) that media does "additional reporting, including interviews" puts the onus on you to show what the "additional reporting" in those articles actually is because nowhere in any of those articles is content "clearly attributable to sources unaffiliated with the company" and in fact, the context of the articles makes it clear that the journalist is merely regurgitating company information without any *independent* anaylsys/comment/etc. If you disagree, please point to a paragraph which contains in-depth "Independent Content". Overall for this company, it may be that it is WP:TOOSOON. For example, I cannot locate any other research from any of the other technology analysts nor but that's not to say that it won't happen in the future. HighKing++ 19:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will keep repeating my point if you keep repeating your argument rejecting journalists' articles printed in reliable third party sources, in direct contradiction of our guidelines. Requiring business article editors to locate a press release (assuming one even exists) and then do a side by side comparison with a published article in a reliable third party media source, and try to reverse engineer the material, is quite frankly a ridiculous hurdle to impose on your fellow editors. It's the ultimate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Is there an in-depth article about the company in a reliable publication or not? Did the reporter choose to spend his time on this subject, or any of the other firehose of press releases from hundreds of thousands of companies that he or she could be writing about? That's the standard I use. But in this instance, I'll humor you. From TechCrunch, it takes no time to find ActiveFence is not the only company building technology to help platform operators, governments and brands have a better picture of what is going on in the wider online world. Factmata has built algorithms to better understand and track sentiments online; Primer (which also recently raised a big round) also uses NLP to help its customers track online information, with its customers including government organizations that used its technology to track misinformation during election campaigns; Bolster (formerly called RedMarlin) is another. Some of the bigger platforms have also gotten more proactive in bringing tracking technology and talent in-house: Facebook acquired Bloomsbury AI several years ago for this purpose; Twitter has acquired Fabula (and is working on a bigger efforts like Birdwatch to build better tools), and earlier this year Discord picked up Sentropy, another online abuse tracker. In some cases, companies that more regularly compete against each other for eyeballs and dollars are even teaming up to collaborate on efforts. That's unlikely from a press release. It's original reporting, and is part of an article about ActiveFence. From Globes, the very first paragraph It wasn’t just routine online chatter. The mayor of a city in the US Midwest appeared to be under imminent physical threat by far-right extremists and federal authorities had to be alerted. This is a call researchers for an Israeli company had to make recently as part of their ongoing work monitoring and detecting harmful and/or illegal content on the internet such as hate speech, child abuse, fraud networks and disinformation campaigns. It's unlikely that this content comes from a company press release, so I'm not going to go looking for one. I'm too busy saving notable articles from new accounts casually slinging harmful accusations at veteran editors while the other veteran AfD participants humor him by ignoring his behavior and voting delete as expected. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 01:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you're starting to get it. Because yes, it takes a ridiculous amount of time to go through references which somebody pulls from the first page of a Google search and lobs them here and says they all meet NCORP. Yes, it is a ridiculous hurdle to impose of fellow editors. Yes, it does mean an in-depth understanding of our guidelines. Perhaps this amount of effort is new to you? I still think you're trying to get references to "fit" the guidelines here and there without appreciating that WP:SIRS requires each reference to meet all of NCORP. So ... why do you think that the extract from TechCrunch contains in-depth information *about the company* seeing as when you remove the bits that are about the other companies, we're left with what exactly? Not enough to meet CORPDEPTH because what is remaining adds up to basically nothing. Similarly the article from Globes, what in-depth information are you seeing in that extract that is about the company? Again. Basically Nothing. HighKing++ 16:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The coverage discussed above is more than a trivial mention. Looks to be a new and growing company and therefore this is a keeper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.15 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't for promoting "up and coming" companies, sourcing is needed to prove reliability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HighKing, unless there are more sources that are not here. The Frost and Sullivan piece is the only plausible source here in terms of notability, and it still kind of... sucks. Realizing the inadequacies of current methods of fighting online threats, ActiveFence empowers a proactive approach to addressing these challenges (seriously? "empowering" an approach?); to make such a feat possible, ActiveFence has developed an ever‐evolving database that captures malicious activities on the internet. It's written in such a fluffy and corporate-speak tone that I simply cannot consider it a high-quality source, even if it is technically independent. I'm also okay with draftification; if this is a truly rapidly growing company, new sources indicating notability can easily be added and the article readded. Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It uses weasel words, so I'd tend to discount that as a source. Without it, we have not much of anything left for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- After reading the above consensus, And Reading HighKing's statement I was super tempted to vote as a DELETE in here then I checked the sources there are few sources which smells puff pieces but a couple of em like [1] this reads legitimate so I am not sure about the deletion. Suryabeej⋠talk⋡ 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey suryabeej, in relation to the source you say "reads legitimate" - the giveaway is in the first sentence where it says "the company announced Thursday". A quick search on your favorite search engine would then turn up this PR announcement from the company which is practically identical. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are a cluster of trivial mentions about a random tech award and a few brief mentions about an early funding round. You can incidentally also tell from the quotes in the TechCrunch piece that it is largely a regurgitated press release, not original journalism, making it more like a primary source. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 4 October 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.