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. One two three... 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armorlogic[edit]

This company appears not to meet the guidelines for inclusion. See this all-dates Google news archive search and do a general Google search. I saw one review that mentioned a product without covering the company, and other than that, only press releases. Bongo matic 07:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bongo matic

Delete I agree with the nominator. The article was previously nominated for speedy delete and the article was created by a founder of the company. Smartse (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, more non-consumer software, referenced only to press releases or sources that aren't about this business or its specific products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This review of their product is the only coverage I could find that wasn't a press release. That's not enough for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't delete it. There are many references and articles which refer to Armorlogic. Check out www.owasp.org which is the number one site and independent organization devoted to web application security. Also, just today this article came to my attention through my Google news alert http://www.darkreading.com/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217400819. This article refers to two companies in the web security space, Armorlogic and Imperva. While this may not seem noteworthy to you, Armorlogic, and its product Profense, are definitely noteworthy to it's thousands of users and the web security world. I hope that is enough. I'm in a conflict here because I'm part of Armorlogic. I'm sure you can tell I don't know much about what I'm doing with Wikipedia as I'm mainly a user not a contributor. Any assistance or education you could provide would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MatthewGWatson (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oops, sorry I forgot to sign. MatthewGWatson (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — MatthewGWatson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The specific reference provided is a fleeting mention in an article about another topic. This doesn't constitute "significant coverage" per guideline. Bongo matic 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic, that is not accurate. It is an article about web application firewalls which is what Armorlogic makes. You can gain additional understanding of the topic on the wiki page for web application firewalls aka application layer firewalls. Of all the many makers of web application firewalls, this article mentions two - one of which is Armorlogic. Again, I don't know the threshold for noteworthy but it seems independent references by industry organizations like OWASP and industry articles which find the company is important enough and known enough to reference seem to point to them being noteworthy. MatthewGWatson (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomatic's charactierisation is accurate. The article is about web application firewalls. Armorlogic is mentioned in a single sentence and that is all. As per WP:NOTABILITY, this passing mention is not what could be characterised as significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are couple of more articles about Armorlogic/Profense which should contribute to the notability part. Windows IT Pro is a known online computer magazine. Undeadly.org is the official OpenBSD news site.

Danish Company Offers Free Web Application Firewall

Better Defenses for Your Web Applications and Database Servers

OpenBSD-based web application firewall -- ssehic (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC) — Ssehic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

First of those references appears to be a thinly edited copy of a press release from a source that may be reliable in the sense of providing accurate information, but not in terms of establishing notability. The second has only a passing mention of the company. The third is a forum posting. Bongo matic 13:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links to resellers/distributors for your consideration

Argoworks a large US based reseller offering various services

Symtrex, another US-based reseller

DotForce - an italian distributor

2secure.biz, another US-based reseller, ssehic (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 10:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm unsure. I hate the fact that the article was made and edited mostly by one of the company founders. However there seems to be a fair number of hits and references for it. A few more references, good reliable ones, and I may swing to keep. Also a lot of the references appear to be for a different company, though upon digging they're not. Most references say the company is Danish, yet the article is about a Canadian company (that can't spell armour correctly if it is Canadian :) )Canterbury Tail talk 12:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide any of the references that you think demonstrate notability? Bongo matic 12:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correctly noticed. Armorlogic is still a Danish company, but recently expanded to Canada and moved the headquarters there. Have a look at company info for more information., ssehic (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. There is not substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As to notability and reliable independent sources, the article itself refers to a review of the Company's product by Secure Computing magazine. Secure Computing is a major IT security industry magazine - a reliable, independent source. The review was comprehensive and mostly positive. I know there is a difference between product and company but surely a notable product makes a company notable? Also, we shouldn't be judging this against perfection. Check out the wiki articles on competitors like Barracuda. The Armorlogic article has more reliable independent source - Secure Computing, OWASP etc. As far as I can tell the main difference is that Armorlogic hasn't been sued. In some respects, maybe that makes Armorlogic more notable:) MatthewGWatson (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barracuda Networks seems to be fairly well sources and well edited and looks notable. This subject, not so much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:CORP and reads like a WP:ADVERT. Furthermore, wp is not a place for advertising. Matthew, I'm afraid that Barracuda is more notable because it's been sued so has more coverage in the reliable sources we're looking for. Read those policies carefully and consider whether you can craft an article (or possibly, to avoid WP:COI, persuade me to) on your software. Or go and (alledgedly) rip off some patents and make sure someone writes about it ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2009 (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.