Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqua Security

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Giving more weight to arguments engaging in critical source assessment, and less weight to those engaging in WP:VAGUEWAVE, consensus is that sourcing does not meet NCORP. Owen× ☎ 12:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Security

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Aqua Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NORG: the article is entirely a list of acquisitions and funding rounds, referenced to trivial coverage ("inclusion in lists of similar organizations" and "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business"). No significant coverage. Dan • ✉ 22:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The company is a notable player in the cybersecurity industry, particularly in cloud-native security. Aqua Security has significant media coverage from reputable sources like Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and The Wall Street Journal --Loewstisch (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citations to Bloomberg are directory information. They do not indicate a WP:CORP that is distinguishable from all other cyber security firms worldwide. Being a financially successful corporation does not a notable one maketh. Ventric (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I totally agree about Bloomberg, as it is just a directory. Loewstisch (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the other references you mentioned - the Techcrunch articles are regurgitated PR on funding rounds with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. The WSJ articles - one has a quote from a company exec, no in-depth information about the company as required by CORPDEPTH, the other is another rehash of a funding announcement, fails ORGIND. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.
  • Keep as the company is well-covered in specific business and security literature (per my additional WP before search), such as books on DevOps, Kubernetes, containerized applications, and cloud security. The page and its sources are also about software. Some security-industry guidebooks also heavily analyze various Aqua software tools, including Trivy and Kube-hunter. --美しい歌 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit simply added three book titles to a new section, and did not connect these references to the prose or explain their relevance. Of the three, Rice (2020) is partially written by company representatives and is not a reliable source: "this work is part of a collaboration between O'Reilly and Aqua Security" (p. ii), Binnie & McCune (2021) is unavailable on Google Books so I can't confirm a reference to the article subject, and Aversa (2023) simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products, but does not demonstrate any notability whatsoever. Dan • ✉ 12:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not solely referring to those books, as there are many more. I agree that Rice (2020) is not an independent source. However, Cloud Native Security devotes a significant portion to the software, while Aversa's book covers the software side of Aqua Security in depth, including descriptions of various software structures, acquisitions, and principles. 美しい歌 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cloud Native Security" book says nothing about the company and the only mentions of the company are in relation to installing some of the software. We require in-depth information about the *company*. HighKing++ 10:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the majority of coverage is comprised of trivial mentions. If it were kept, it would require a sharp reduction in content because it reads as WP:ADS - it is largely self-promo content. However, the lack of specific coverage and the inclusion in "who-to-watch" lists and whatnot does not comprise notability. CapnPhantasm (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are mainly about routine investment rounds, but not all of them. Some Hebrew sources, as well as a few U.S. ones, offer sufficient and independent coverage. The company passes ORG notability threshold ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example? The only non-trivial reference in the article appears to be that of the The New Stack article; the rest of the references are completely trivial funding drivel. A Google News search likewise finds no relevant reliable sources. Dan • ✉ 00:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meeting NCORP. All deletes claim that the article is imperfect: this is true however AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So weak arguments for deletion. gidonb (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/move to draft space, the article was almost certainly created by the company itself and is almost entirely based on poor quality sources. I've removed the most egregious claims/sources and what remains is "a list of acquisitions and funding rounds" as stated by the nominator. While a stub article could probably be created from reliable sources, it does not seem fair to allow a "$1 billion dollar" company's marketing department to create work for volunteers. The article should be created via the WP:AFC process instead of allowing a COI article to be created directly in mainspace without repercussions. Brandon (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP Youknow? (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Review of references yields many tech blogs and VC funding reports, and no significant, independent, reliable secondary sources. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll spare everyone the meta-commentary so as to avoid sounding like a paranoiac but the sources available is truly the trivial-ist of WP:ORGTRIV it is possible to get. By design, a pain to get through. Got up to page 10, nothing that contributes to NCORP in the slightest. Binnie and McCune (2021) does briefly mention Aqua in the context of how to use some software, but there is insufficient content about the software for it to contribute to the notability of even the software. Aversa (2023) is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher, so unless someone gives me a good reason, I am inclined to decline to review it beyond that. Best, Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An Israeli unicorn with multiple reliable sources and a minimum but significant level of coverage in reputable independent media. In addition, the topic of the discussion is also a set of various software apps that have also received significant media attention even in the industry focused papers and books.
Hib Al Gibol (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the sources in Hebrew, some books, and at least Calcalistech have required deep coverage with analysis, brief overivew, etc that allows for anyone to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" - as WP:ORGDEPTH says --Jiaoriballisse (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calcalistech is similar to Techcrunch. It almost the same format and its junk. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets have a look at the first block of references:
Ref 1 [1] Inteview with founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [2] Paid for profile.
Ref 3 [3] Paid for profile
Ref 4 [4] An X of Y article. This is a paid-for profile and is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [5] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 6 [6] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 7 [7] This is PR profile with interview material. It fails WP:SIRS. Its not independent.
Ref 8 [8] Another list of unicorns. A profile. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [9] This is the passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 10 [10] Passing mention. Context is wrong. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 11 [11] This details Aquas own security report. Its a WP:SPS source.
Ref 12 [12] Discusses the report above.

So in the first 12 reference not a single reference passed either WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. All the information like most startups comes from Aqua itelf. It is a complete failure of WP:NCORP. Its another UPE advertisement. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll relist this for a few more days to allow editors arguing to Keep this article to rebut the source review which identifies the existing sources as inadequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep according to WP:SUBSTANTIAL, partly WP:PRODUCT and WP:CORPDEPTH. I found this discussion very interesting and would like to clarify and help the "pro-life aka keep" voters with a clear example of substantial media coverage. Let's start with WP:PRODUCT. I applied the WP Product while reviewing the book Cloud Native Security, which was mentioned twice in this discussion. I found that Aqua Security’s product, kube-hunter, received significant and in-depth coverage in the book. It wasn't mentioned briefly in any way, but it was thoroughly examined as one of the key tools for auditing and securing Kubernetes environments. The coverage overpassed the book passage requirement (WP Substantial) for the coverage be significant and not trivial. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, when a company is known for a series of products, it's best to cover both the company and its products in one consolidated article. Aqua Security's tools, such as kube-hunter and kube-bench, are crucial to its operations and have been recognized by independent, reliable sources, making them notable enough to be included in the same article as the company. Given the deep coverage at least in a source like Cloud Native Security, the page may be notable. For these reasons, I think the article should be restructured to avoid redundant and promotional corporate achievements and mention some of its software. Second, let's come back to WP:SUBSTANTIAL and its second bullet point: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization. I spent some time and also reviewed the coverage of Aqua Security in multiple TechCrunch articles, which provide often trivial but often substantial and ongoing media attention that clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements for an organization. For example, Aqua Security has been the highlighted for its large market presence and role in the industry with small but overall good analyses and feedback made by the authors of the Techcrunch. I mean, there were not only mentions of funding rounds, but much more. For example, the 2021 article discusses Aqua’s transition from a product-based company to a platform that secures the entire cloud-native environment, with notable achievements in container and Kubernetes security. Similarly, earlier articles from 2019 also focus on Aqua's innovative approach to container security, explaining its role in securing Fortune 500 customers' critical cloud environments. Third point I've read The Marker media - one of the top in Israel and not tech-only. The article provides detailed analysis of Aqua Security’s unique position in the cloud-native security market, focusing on its specialized approach to securing applications during runtime, which makes it different from competitors like Wiz and Orca. The reporter highlights how Aqua Security’s agent-based solution provides deeper protection than agentless systems. This deep coverage in the article also shows that Aqua’s technology is recognized as being more comprehensive but with a more complex integration process. Additionally, The Marker analyzes the growing overlapping among key players of the cybersecurity industry, where Aqua Security is moving towards offering broader, more integrated solutions by acquiring startups like Argon. The article also analyzes how Aqua Security acts in a competitive Israel market. The media is positioning Aqua as a leader in cloud-native security while providing detailed not trivial and interesting comparisons with new competitors such as Apwind, Sweet Security, and others. So we see here no routine or promotion, but clear deep "homemade" (in-house) significant coverage. Here is the article: [13]. My last point. There is another substantial coverage of Aqua Security in The Marker, which explores how the company strategically acquires competitors to become a bigger player, bite a bigger market share and reduce competition. The article also hints that such activities are not very good and may harm the thriving and competitive ecosystem of security startups, and and so on. Link [14]. 46.120.127.13 (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:PRODUCT does not apply here as this article is about the company. See the note above by HighKing: We require in-depth information about the *company*.
    2. None of the articles in TechCrunch satisfy WP:SUBSTANTIAL as you claim. Please compare to WP:ORGTRIV's example: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: … of a capital transaction, such as raised capital, … All three of the articles are entirely about receiving investment funding:
      • "Aqua Security raises $135M at a $1B valuation for its cloud native security platform"
      • "Container security startup Aqua lands $62M Series C"
      • "Cloud-native cybersecurity startup Aqua Security raises $60M and remains a unicorn"
    3. The first article you cite in The Marker is also about funding, at least according to Google Translate's rendering of the headline: Hebrew: אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים, lit. 'Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago'
    4. The second article in The Marker fails a different WP:ORGTRIV example of trivial coverage: … of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, … Hebrew: לפני חצי שנה ארגון השיקה מוצר – כעת היא נמכרת ליוניקורן הסייבר אקווה בעשרות מיליוני דולרים, lit. 'Six months ago an organization launched a product - now it is sold to the cyber unicorn Aqua for tens of millions of dollars'
    Dan • ✉ 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I need to disagree with you and choose the side of the other user who expressed their views above and found those articles. I’ve read it in Hebrew and must admit it really meets the requirements for SIGCOV. I also believe it's important to look beyond the titles and brief summaries of these articles. It's true that many articles begin with catchy headlines about funding or acquisitions, but that's just standard practice for media. The real value lies in the depth of analysis within the text itself.
    For instance, The Marker articles do not simply report on Aqua Security’s funding; they provide detailed insight into Aqua’s strategic role in the cloud-native security market and how its technology sets it apart from competitors. One article goes into a thorough discussion of Aqua's unique approach to securing applications during runtime, contrasting it with agentless solutions like those from Wiz and Orca. This isn't just routine coverage—it’s an exploration of the technological depth and market position that Aqua has carved out. The piece also discusses the challenges and advantages of Aqua’s agent-based solution, offering a more complex and comprehensive take than simple mentions of funding rounds.
    As for TechCrunch, it’s a tricky question but the rule about “ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” should be used here. I will add additional in a separete comment. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NCORP has specific guidance on assessing independence and SIGCOV (particularly ORGTRIV), and the sources provided here do not meet these parameters. Brief coverage of product announcements, funding rounds, acquisitions, etc. is not SIGCOV, content purely derived from what the company says about itself is not independent, and coverage of a product is not inherited by the company. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New significant sources added I was inspired by the latest updated within the discussion and found out that aside from this newly found reliable significant coverage source by the Marker [15] there are some better sources and ground for raising the page’s notability.
Here is another significant piece of coverage on the topic: https://www.ice.co.il/finance/news/article/836868. The Ice.co.il sou provides substantial coverage of Aqua Security by analyzing the impact of its acquisition of Argon. The article share the details of the Argon’s technology and explains how it protects the software supply chain from "code manipulation and malicious insertions." It also make an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin to become "the only provider capable of offering full protection for development processes" in cloud environments. Furthermore, it highlights industry challenges, such as increasing cyber threats, and references recent high-profile breaches like SolarWinds.
Another reliable source from The Marker:
https://www.themarker.com/technation/2021-03-10/ty-article/.premium/0000017f-e5eb-d62c-a1ff-fdfbb0b00000
I have an access to it and see that the article provides significant coverage of Aqua Security, stopping in detail at key developments such as its latest funding round, business growth, who invested and why invested (it shed some light that CEO Davidoff worked with one of the investors in the previous round on other projects) and the history of the company. It also explains how the company move from the container security niche to the broader solutions on the global scale.
I have also rewritten the page and made it equally about the software and the company. That is why the company has a large amount of notable software that is the subject of significant reviews/guides in the industry books during the last 3-5 years.
Here are some books I researched thanks to WP BEFORE and share how they contribute to the software/company's notability:
  1. In the book Mastering Cloud Native by Aditya Pratap Bhuyan, Aqua Security receives significant coverage, particularly highlighting its Aqua Platform, which offers comprehensive end-to-end security for cloud-native environments. The book has explanations of key features such as image scanning, runtime protection, and compliance enforcement, demonstrating software’s major role in securing containerized applications and more.
  2. In Security for Containers and Kubernetes by Luigi Aversa, Aqua Security's open-source tool Trivy receives significant, in-depth coverage across several chapters, demonstrating its importance in container security. The book highlights Trivy's functionalities like vulnerability detection, SBOM support, and many other boring technical but not passing-mention stuff. Given the thorough, independent analysis in this book, Aqua Security's software meets Wikipedia's notability requirements for significant coverage.
  3. In the book Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook, an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool into CI/CD pipelines for container security. This section provides detailed, step-by-step instructions for using Trivy with platforms such as CircleCI and GitLab. The guide was written by authors independent of Aqua Security, which corresponds with substantial coverage under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (namely this part:: an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies).
So, to sum up, there have been found and added to the page at least 3 reliable sources with non-trivial and in-depth coverage of the company, while we also have a multiple books covering the software and the page now is a combination of the company and a product. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
  • Dor, Ofir (2024-01-03). אקווה סקיוריטי גייסה 60 מיליון דולר בשווי של לפני שלוש שנים [Aqua Security raised $60 million in value three years ago]. The Marker (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate funding round.
  • Cohen, Nitzan (2021-02-12). אקווה סקיוריטי רוכשת חברה ישראלית שתגן על מפתחי תוכנה [Aqua Security acquires an Israeli company that will protect software developers]. Finance. ICE (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of a corporate acquisition. Your comment that it an overview of the context and notes the role in the cybersecurity landscape for Aqua Security and explain the readers how this purchase heps the organizatin describes the standard boilerplate corporate speak found in these types of articles, and is not actually a notable journalistic description of the company.
  • Zahrovich, Omri (2021-03-10). אקווה סקיוריטי הופכת לחד קרן: 'יש 'הייפ' בענף, אבל לנו יש ביצועים חזקים' [Aqua Security becomes a unicorn: 'There is 'hype' in the industry, but we have strong performance']. The Marker (in Hebrew).
    This is standard WP:CORPTRIV of inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists.
  • Bhuyan, Aditya Pratap (2024). Mastering Cloud Native: A Comprehensive Guide to Containers, DevOps, CI/CD, and Microservices. ISBN 979-833423401-7.
    This is a self-published book for its author to advertise his consulting business.
  • Aversa, Luigi (2023). Security for Containers and Kubernetes. Delhi: BPB Publications. ISBN 978-93-55518-439. OCLC 1382693746.
    I already noted above that this book simply makes passing references for how to use Aqua Security products. Further, Alpha3031 identified above that is published by BPB Publishing which is a predatory publisher.
  • Karslioglu, Murat (2020). Kubernetes - A Complete DevOps Cookbook: Build and Manage Your Applications, Orchestrate Containers, and Deploy Cloud-Native Services. Birmingham: Packt. ISBN 978-1-83882-804-2. OCLC 1190651785. OL 27083721W.
    The use of Trivy is explained in pp. 475–481; however, it is a gross exaggeration to claim that an entire chapter is dedicated to a how-to guide on integrating Aqua Security's Trivy tool as the containing chapter (chapter 9) makes no mention of it or of Aqua Security the company outside this six-page subsection. As noted by HighKing, we require in-depth information about the *company* which a brief explanation of how to deploy one of its products does not qualify for.
None of these above qualify as independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dan • ✉ 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lots of canvanssing going on here. I had a look at the books as well. The Aditya Pratap Bhuyan book is self-published. Its a junk ref. The Luigi Aversa is essentially a manual and Aqua is mentioned, but its passing mention. Its more on how to implement Trivy and not specific to the company. The Marker is like Tech Crunch, as detailed at a previous Afd. There is nothing here in this company that makes it particular notable. scope_creepTalk 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich! The Marker is a financial daily owned by Haaretz, Israel's newspaper of record. Nothing like Tech Crunch! gidonb (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting and analyzing the reliable sources
  • This source from TheMarker [16] is not WP:CORPTRIV but a classic WP:SUBSTANTIAL and meet NCROP criteria. Here is my analysis:
According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations and companies, significant coverage must be:
  • Reliable: Published by trustworthy sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • Secondary: Produced by sources independent of the subject.
  • Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest.
  • In-depth: Goes beyond trivial mentions or routine announcements; provides substantial information and analysis.
Reliability of the Source: TheMarker is a well-respected Israeli business publication known for its credible journalism and in-depth reporting. The article is written by Ofir Dor, a journalist, indicating professional authorship. Conclusion: The source is reliable.
Independence and Secondary Nature: The article is independent of Aqua Security; there is no indication of it being sponsored content or a press release. It provides analysis and reporting separate from any company influence. Conclusion: The article is an independent, secondary source.
Depth of Coverage: the article talks/coverages on Market Position (Discusses Aqua's maintained valuation amidst industry challenges), Company Background (provides history since its founding in 2015, total investments, and key personnel); ::Industry Analysis (explores the competitiveness across the industry, mentioning specific competitors and how Aqua's approach differs. It analyzes industry trends, such as the convergence of cybersecurity solutions and the debate over agent-based versus agentless security tools); Technical Evaluation (discusses the technical aspects of Aqua's solutions. Includes perspectives on the effectiveness of their approach compared to competitors. The article addresses both the business and technical dimensions of Aqua Security, offering a broad overview “that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements).
Avoidance of Trivial or Routine Coverage: not Routine, while it mentions the funding event, the article expands significantly on other aspects.
Conclusion. The coverage is significant and non-trivial because the focus is on analyzing the company's position, strategies, and industry impact rather than merely announcing routine stuff.
  • Second source for analysis [17]. I will be brief here. The article, instead of trivial routine mentioning of the purchase of Argon competitor, explores in-depth how the acquisition of the startup helps Aqua Security's position in cloud-native security “by enhancing their protection across the software development lifecycle, especially focusing on software supply chain security”. It also provides us with a discussion on Argon's agentless solutions and the integration into Aqua’s platform that may strengthen Aqua’s capability in securing apps "from code to runtime," which may be a good leverage among the competitors. The article further mentions the context of cyberattacks, referencing infamous incidents like the SolarWinds and Codecov attacks and discussing how Aqua’s integration of Argon’s technology will influence this. This industry-wide analysis adds significance and in-depth coverage that goes beyond a routine announcement of the acquisition.
  • Third source [18] the article goes beyond routine corporate announcements by…. analyzing the company's growth trajectory, financial details, and competitive positioning within the cloud-native security market. Additionally, it highlights Aqua Security's evolution, telling the readers how it progressed from a container-based security company to another industry: cloud-native security platforms. The coverage also has details about the company's revenue growth, clients, and how it fits among the global industry giants like CheckPoint and Palo Alto Networks. All that is filled with some kind of irony about the market hype around cloud-native security and the journalist kind of questions if it’s enough for Aqua, even along with tis good financial performance, to be distinguished from competitors and survive.
So, to sum up, this is pretty decent depth of coverage, providing financial specifics, industry comparisons, and market positioning. It definitely is reliable, secondary and deep enough. I also need to highlight what is the TheMarker media, as for many it may sound like some junk. So, TheMarker is a leading financial and business news outlet in Israel. It has a long-standing reputation for its thorough journalism and reliable reporting. Founded in 1999, it is part of the prestigious Haaretz group, one of Israel's oldest and most respected media organizations (founded in 1918). TheMarker is well-known for its investigative journalism, independence of view, deep and critical economic and business analysis. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ג'ימיהחיה. As I understand it "לפי הודעת אקווה" translates to "According to Aqua's announcement". Is this incorrect? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the news includes also the company's announcement, which I disregarded and did not include in my analysis, as well as any comments from any parties—whether from the startups that were acquired or from industry competitors. ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is not including all the parts where it says "according to the company" and "the company claims" ("באקווה לפחות טוענים"), etc in the only parts that aren't about the funding round how you arrived at the conclusion there was no indication of any company influence? Because I'm not sure what parts you think are left once you get rid of that and the top three paragraphs, which are the fact that they raised money, how much they raised, and the fact that they announced they raised money. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll also add that the "definition" used above Independent: Not affiliated with the subject; free from conflicts of interest addresses only half of the definition, and probably the reason why some editors are struggling with wrapping their heads around what "Independent Source" means. See WP:ORGIND which not only comments on the "not affiliated" at a corporate level, but also addresses the *content" such that the article text must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. As Alpha3031 correctly says above, once you remove the obvious regurgitated company information, where is the *in-depth* original/independent opinion/analysis/fact checking/investigation/etc? There's nothing in any of those articles. There is no "Independent Content" - all of the information is regurgitated from company sources. HighKing++ 10:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 September 29 and to get it back on the logs. This may be closed by an admin whenever they deem it ready
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. I see a great deal of special pleading and talking up of incidental coverage, padded out with a mass of company material. Basically there's hardly anything of substance in the sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article reads as if it was written by a corporate technical writer. It is free of any obvious marketing language, but is entirely written from the viewpoint of the company. Corporate notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. This article describes what the company has done, but nothing in this article is about third-party sources have written about the company. This article does not speak for itself and does not state what independent reliable sources have said about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reviewing the sources, they're all WP:ORGTRIV or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS; there's insufficient WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to pass WP:NCORP. To answer a few points made above, The Marker's coverage is classic ORGTRIV (valuations, capital investments, etc.), and The New Stack source, while substantial, includes a little note in small type at the bottom: "TNS owner Insight Partners is an investor in: Docker, Aqua Security", which would raise questions about The New Stack's independence as a source on this company. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an Israeli tech nerd, never heard of it. It is definitely not notable locally, and considering the bad sources (as pointed out above many times) and lack of any real content in the page itself, it isn't notable in a niche either. RatherQueerDebator (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sourcing isn't up to par and I can't identify a logical merge or redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 23:14, 30 September 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aqua_Security&oldid=1251725617"