Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centrify

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Centrify

[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)

This article should be deleted as per G5 speedy deletion criteria. I am opening an AfD just because repeated attempts at deletion have been frustrated by users gaming the system. Here is a summarized timeline:

27 February 2013‎ - created by Ammichel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later blocked as sockpuppet of the long-term abuser Morning277.
4 September 2013 - Ammichel was blocked, article speedy deleted (G5)
18 September 2013‎ - CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recreates the article ([1]). This user was blocked on 27 January 2014 as another Morning277 sockpuppet.
27 January 2014 - article deleted (G5)
14 April 2014‎ - article recreated by single-purpose account Olivier cv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21 April 2014‎ - article nominated for speedy deletion (G5) by DGG ([2])
22 April 2014 - speedy deletion tag removed by IP 98.173.195.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([3])
9 May 2015 - article PROD'd by Bri ([4])
11 May 2015 - de-PROD'd by 70.197.10.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([5]), twice
11 May 2015 - later de-PROD'd by recently registered, single-edit account BlackDog11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([6])
25 August 2017‎ - further edits by Mrhuuaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an SPA that edited, exclusively, two articles under heavy COI/UPE editing.
29 September 2017‎ - article edited by ChristianFernandes12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), yet another UPE sockpuppet blocked as such.

These anonymous and SPA start popping up after sockpuppet blocks, and they seem fairly experienced in Wikipedia editing. Either LegalMorning, WikiPR or Centrify itself is clearly gaming the system here to avoid deletion.

In any case, the article has got no better at sources. All of them except one (which is a routine "top ten SaaS security products" listing article) are self-published, press releases or sources with dubious reliability. MarioGom (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (and protect against re-creation) As MarioGom says, doing it here has the advantage of being a more definitive way than speedy. It will clarify further speedy deletions if it is needed by evading the protection. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously since I thought it was PROD worthy earlier, and it's no better now. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's a breakdown of how all the sources fail WP:ORGCRITE:

Interview. Not independent.
"Top 10" list. Not significant or reliable
Centrify gets 10m in 3rd round. It's a listed example of trivial coverage: "of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,"
Blog post/opinion piece. Sadly enough, actually the best source in the entire list. Even if this is acceptable though, multiple sources that pass the criteria are needed.
More trivial coverage of capital raised

Otherwise, the article has no attempt to establish notability and was created with the worst of intentions, so it's an easy delete. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's quite a history of abuse, and some pretty poor sources. After so much time, one would have expected many better sources to be available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Terrible history. scope_creep (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear desperate attempts at promotion with dubious sources. Also support salting of the title. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very salty. —AE (talk • contributions) 14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:08, 12 September 2018 (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.