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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auth0[edit]

Auth0 (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)

Anon-dePROD with the following: "Removed the proposal to delete the page. Auth0 has been around for over 3 years and is a major player in the Authentication SaaS space. The company has contributed massively to the open source community with various libraries for authentication and more." Even with the anon's additions, the page still fails WP:CORP with no apparent coverage in WP:RS that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The page is full of laden language and essentially serves as an advertisement. FalconK (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional independent sources that cover Auth0:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/24/auth0-series-b/ http://www.geekwire.com/2015/auth0-wants-make-logging-in-easier-with-new-password-free-authentication-service/ http://onehungrymind.com/auth0-vs-stormpath/ http://thevarguy.com/secure-cloud-data-storage-news-and-information/101315/auth0-wants-make-passwords-go-away-mobile-and-iot-dev just to name a few — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.82.57 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The fluffy terminology can be easily removed. There is plenty of good coverage. TechCrunch is a good source [1], as is USA Today [2], and The Seattle Times [3]. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Cleanup occurs when an editor rolls up their sleeves to fix a problem themselves, even if the relevant articles seem boring. Yvarta (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Virtually all the coverage about them, and all of what you linked, is just about them raising money. There's nothing to say about them (yet). I, too, looked at the article and couldn't find much worth writing about in an encyclopedia. FalconK (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom I'm unconvinced by what RS coverage there is. If kept, this will be about a paragraph - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:CORPDEPTH met via coverage in USA Today, Hacked, and Seattle Times. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what world is Hacked an RS? - David Gerard (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess....not in your world? Even with striking that source, which is fine by me, there are still at least two solid sources, which is what's required to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; the article largely consists of intricate detail on a non-notable entity (for example, providing a handy table on all of the funding rounds. The article exists as a client / investor prospectus, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles. If it were to be kept it would need to be reduced to a paragraph at best to comply with Wikipedia policies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sounds like a relatively interesting idea, but so far all of the coverage is routine "new company raising money" stuff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 15 October 2016 (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.