Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enigma.io

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma.io

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~New firm, has not yet accomplished anything. "is building an infrastructure~~ < /br> From the added sources, they're actually in operation, and apparently notable. AfD withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existing page was out of date and lacked evidence of notability. I'm currently in the process of updating it to use a more objective tone, as well as to reflect new information and new sources which should establish notability - will comment here again once this is complete. Thanks. Dandelany ( talk ) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ DGG: I've finished my edits to show evidence of notability and fill in more content. I believe the page should now meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY guidelines. Full disclosure: I am an employee of Enigma, but as a programmer, not as a paid advocate. I've made every effort to rewrite the article with an objective, neutral point of view, but feel free to make any additional edits for neutral tone as necessary. Thanks, Dandelany ( talk ) 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on the refs, especially the March 2014 NYT article & the July 2014 TeleChruch that NorthAmerica1000 added, they apparently do have a released product, and one that has gotten considerable interest. The greatly improved article is much clearer about that. Experience here is that it is difficult from someone in the company, whether programmer or publicist, to focus an article adequately, which is what we mean by CO; someone without it would not have assumed the material presented wa sufficient to show the notability. . DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. Out of curiosity - "which is what we mean by CO" - what does CO mean here? Thanks, --Dandelany (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my typ, it's COI, Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 24 July 2014 (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.