Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secure Access Technologies

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. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Access Technologies[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Does not appear to have sufficient level of reliable source coverage to meet notability requirements at this time. James of UR (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Ayed AfD. [User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Don't Delete. This page provides very valuable information. This Article has sufficient level of reliable sources.^ Amphion Forum |https://amphionforum.com Jump up ^ "SC MAGAZINE AWARDS 2014 FINALIST round one". scmagazine.com. Jump up ^ "SAT". mobilityforum.net. Jump up ^ "More Details for Secure Access Technologies". manta.com. Jump up ^ "secure access technologies announces with mobileIron Appconnect". secureaccesstechnologies.com. Jump up ^ "Secure Access Technologies Announces Integration with MobileIron AppConnect". reuters.com. surely i will also add some Reliable sources. It is within the scope of wikipedia's WikiProject Biography. It will be more improve earlier as people visit this page. Mathur99 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)— Mathur99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't deleted because, It is not a little bit commercial spam. There is nothing promotional on this page. This Article doesn’t have information about Products, doesn’t have information about profits and doesn’t have information about Revenue. This page is created only for information purpose with neutral point of viewand also has many good sources. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. . This Page is only for information purpose. I am sure you will ever not found any promotional content in this Article, If you find any content controversial please edit that content.Todineshmathur (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)— Todineshmathur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sole claim to notability based on the links given is being nominated for an SC Magazine 2014 award, which it appears hasn't been awarded yet, and we don't predict the future. I would accept winning the award as evidence of notability but not enough on its own to keep, and besides they have not won. Reuters link seems like a press release (compare to the link to the company's own website) and the others are selfpubs and directories that aren't useful here. Ivanvector (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:42. reddogsix (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Delete This Article - Humble Request to all of you. I know Articles rquire significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. yes This Article has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have recently added two sources both they are reliable and independent of the subject

1- first reliable source is a printed magazine named THE BUSINESS JOURNALS. This is a very popular printed business magazine across the world providing Business news. it has a written Article and news about Secure Access Technologies with title "Secure Access Technologies tackles workplace mobile" on date 2013/06/07. you may find this at http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/print-edition/2013/06/07/secure-access-technologies-tackles.html. I think this is a very strong reliable source and independent of the subject.

2-second Reliable source is CRN Magazine. this is a monthly and popular printed Magazine distributed across the world. it has written an Article and news about Secure Access Technologies with titled "The 10 Coolest Security Startups Of 2013" on date 19-07-2013 and on Friday. You may find this at http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/security/240158269/the-10-coolest-security-startups-of-2013-so-far.htm?pgno=9 I think this is another a very strong Reliable source and independent of the Subject.

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete we all come to know that this article is neutral in nature and have very strong and reliable sources. This Article is within the scope of Wikipedia's company project. It is informative and educative in nature. I could provide many other references and sources as I am a purely wikipedian. surely I will provide some great sources and references. Thanks to all.106.213.94.200 (talk) 11:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — 106.213.94.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial or enough to support inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination has merits! - This company has technology that is of great importance to the security community. Article references are with reputable CRN magazine, Silicon Valley Business Journal and SC Magazine. For ounce, I was able to learn about a new company with a great technology, and believe that this is of interest to the community as a whole. [[USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)]] ([[User talk:50.150.122.146 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)#top|talk]]) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The article references are trivial mentions of the company or Press Releases, nothing here is substantial enough to be considered as non-trivial. reddogsix (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CRN, SC Magazine and Silicon Valley Business Journal are very reputable journals and magazines and the articles were written specifically about Secure Access Technologies. It is INGENIOUS to call the references trivial! Dr. Taher ElGamal, the inventor of SSL is a backer of this company. The company presents revolutionary PROXIMITY security technology and 10 patents issued. This mention of Secure Access Technologies is of interest to all the security and crypto community. [USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)]— 50.150.122.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Ingenious? reddogsix (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The overuse of the words "Trivial" against articles by reputable magazines CRN, SC Magazine and Silicon Valley Business Journal, and against Dr ElGamal is an ingenious way to discredit oneself [USER:50.150.122.146 (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Comment - I would suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:UNCIVIL before contributing further to Wikipedia. Specifically where was ElGamal called trivial? reddogsix (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back up your claim that Dr. ElGamal is backing this? I did not see that in the articles mentioned, and this claim could run afoul of our policies on quoting living persons if not backed up by a good source. This needs to be backed up by a very good, neutral source that not only confirms it, but discusses why his endorsement is important. Having 10 or any number of patents issued does not demonstrate notability unless there is an independent source that asserts that the patents are important, and indeed it is to be expected that any start-up security company would have invested in a large number of patents. The patents themselves are not useful because they would have been written by the company, and therefore not verifiable sources.

Regarding the sources you've provided specifically:

CRN gives the company only a trivial mention in a listing of 9 other companies. It briefly explains what the company's product is but gives no indication of its importance. I see here that Dr. Elgamal is on the company's Board of Advisors, but that is not inherently an endorsement.
Silicon Valley Business Journal published this article in a section they call The Pitch, and indeed it reads like a press release or snippet from a prospectus published by the company. It also appears that SVBJ regularly publishes press releases submitted to them. The independence of this citation is dubious. It could be useful as a citation with info about a company, but only if it was supplementing another non-primary source independent of the company. Again it mentions Dr. Elgamal but not as an endorsement.
SC Magazine again only gives a trivial mention in a listing of many companies that might win its award in the future. Even if SAS had won the award, the award doesn't appear to be a major award, but it might be notable if the magazine had done a write-up on the company when it won. Of course none of this has happened yet, and Wikipedia does not predict the future.

These sources are not good enough to demonstrate the company's notability because they are too short, or they appear to be written by the company, or both. Please have a look at Wikipedia's guide to reliable sources, and if you know of any, please let us know. I did not find any better sources online.

Also, it looks like you are copy-pasting code to make up your signature. It is much easier to sign your post by typing ~~~~ and the server will replace that with your signature, like this: Ivanvector (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, the commenter (Ivanvector) seems to diminish the value of the United State Patents and Trade Mark Office patents as investments.
USPTO Note that patents are pieces of law that cannot be purchased by anyone. They are edited by the USPTO and are merited on the sole basis of innovation, novelty and functionality!
SVBJ The commenter also appears to diminish the reporting of one of the most reputable business journals – The PITCH section - as a mere pay for hire. Note that the PITCH team selects companies on the basis of Merit, and never accepts suggestions or payment for its reporting.
CRN magazine reporting is not a trivial mention!!! CRN has selected 10 Coolest Security Startups for 2013, has investigated those companies, and has written an article about each of those companies, including an article about Secure Access Technologies. Again, CRN has described the company’s product, and has indicated the importance of Secure Access Technologies as one of TOP 10 coolest security startup of 2013.
SC MAGAZINE has an independent vetting process for Best Multi-Factor Authentication technologies. Secure Access Technologies has passed several rounds and has been announced as finalist for last round.
Dr ElGamal is on the company’s Board of Advisors, and there cannot be a stronger endorsement to a company than to be officially associated with the company and to be on its board. Dr ElGamal has a signed contract with SAT.
Finally the commenter has omitted the CTIA Mobits Award for Best Application Security Product.

Ivanvector considers any work by the USPTO, CRN, SVBJ, SC Magazine as too short or written by the company or both... I would suggest that Ivanvector researches these institutions and tries to understand their work and processes. These are some of the most reputable institutions in the US. In the case of the USPTO, it is one of the major pillars of the US Economy. NONE of these institutions publishes work or endorses work for a mere fee. Also, for your information, SAT did not pay a penny for these endorsements. SAT revolutionary technology with 10 patents GRANTED/ISSUED speaks for itself. As for Dr ElGamal, a BOARD OF ADVISOR seat in the company is the HIGHEST form of endorsement a company can have.[User 50.150.122.146 (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)]— 50.150.122.146 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll admit I'm not all that familiar with these publications specifically, but I am experienced in reviewing corporate press materials. I'd welcome a critique from an experienced editor familiar with these topics. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - primary sources and trivial mentions are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, it is as simple as that. If proponents had spent as much time securing independent coverage as they have making spurious arguments here, this might be notable by now. Just silly. Stalwart111 08:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage. The USPTO can be used to verify facts, but having a patent, or 10 patents, or any number of patents does not establish notability. Nor do minor mentions in lists of startups and such. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart: What arguments did u find spurrious??? What do you mean by "securing independent coverage"???? Are you saying that we need to go out and buy some coverage??? Secure Access Technologies is in the business of innovation in mobile security and has received coverage in the most reputable security magazines without EVER paying for PR. Our company in the US FEDERAL LAW, and there are 10 LEGISLATIVE PIECES of law, they are called Patents that affect mobile security business going forward.

Whpq: Please see my mention about US Patents. With all due respect, there appears to be serious misunderstanding of patents. US patents are not merely used to verify facts. They a LEGISLATIVE pieces of federal law that dictate what people can manufacture, import or sell. Specifically, and this is from our patents: "United States Patent Grants to the person(s) having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United Sates of America or importing the invention into the United States of America...."

I suggest you revisit your arguments about the USPTO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.122.146 (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC) — 50.150.122.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If the technology is truly notable, it shouldn't be hard to secure independent coverage from interested journalists and authors (reliable sources) without paying for it. Patents (per long standing consensus) are primary sources, not independent secondary sources, as they require interpretation (WP:OR) to extract meaning. USPTO arguments are tried, tested and have been fairly comprehensively rejected. Coverage of those patents would be a different story. Stalwart111 07:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "our patents"? Please see WP:COI. Stalwart111 07:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart buddy, you need to do some ready, and present material facts! Please refrain from making spurious comments about CRN, SVBJ, CTIA Mobits and SC Magazine being for hire. CRN and SC are most reputable magazines in security. SVBJ is the most reputable business journal in Silicon Valley.

THESE ARE NOT PAID ARTICLES. THESE ARE INDEPENDENT COVERAGE, and by the way, SAT does not have the resources to pay for these articles. This is NOT A FUNDED company, and would not have the $ to pay for these!!!

All there is is Great Technology, independent coverage, and well deserved MERIT.

Please Read the articles, Read about the company, understand the technology, Read about the sources CRN, SVBJ, CTIA and SC, and Understand patents

These are simple things that any literate can read and understand. Also, US Patents are PLAIN ENGLIGH and all you need to do is read. Believe me, you will not need an interpreter for this!!!

The facts here are: Independent coverage by CRN, SVBJ, CTIA Mobits Award, SC Magazine Nomination as Finalist, Dr ElGamal as Board Adviser, more than 10 patents ISSUED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.241.83 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC) — 72.214.241.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V and finally WP:N. You seem to have misunderstood most of what has been suggested so far with regard to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Stalwart111 21:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There appears to be a clear case of meat-puppery or canvassing based upon the single purpose IPs and their very biased assessment of the article and their clear unfamiliarity to the process. I was tempted to delete this article under G11 after reading it. Mkdw ^talk 03:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This page contains information about a company with an innovative technology.

Its technology has been considered unique and rewarded several patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. US Patent and Trade Office grants patents reviews designs and technology as an unbiased "third party", and has no vested interest in a company. Incidentally, the Patent Office did reject some of the Secure Access Technologies applications.

CRM Magazine article referred to was initiated by the staff of the magazine on their own. Secure Access Technologies did not request an article to be written. No information was provided to the magazine by the Secure Access Technologies ahead of time.

In summary:

Patents are issued because Patent office finds merits with them.
Patent office is a unbiased 3d party.
References are not all press releases.
CRM magazine article was initiated by themselves

.2602:306:377C:6FE0:BDA8:1999:DB32:25AE (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — 2602:306:377C:6FE0:BDA8:1999:DB32:25AE (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.