Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apriva

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. Insufficient indication of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apriva

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

No indication of importance, no reliable third-party sources to explain why this company is significant. Only source is a newspaper article from 2000, which is essentially a press release; it is NOT a reliable independent source. Google searches and news searches show no reliable coverage. It's clear that the company exists, but it's not clear that they are at all important. WP:MILL, if that; and only one editor to this page. — Timneu22 · talk 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; to be clear, it's not 'essentially' a press release, it's really a press release from the company distributed over business wire. Will look for other sources. Kuru (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's hundreds of trivial mentions in articles and magazines; most of those are press releases. This was about all I could ferret out that looked independent and went beyond trivial coverage. Note that there are also product offerings list at AprivaPay, [AprivaMail]], and Apriva Reader that may offer some other context. Kuru (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This is a wireless solutions provider that integrates the hardware, software and network infrastructure required to develop and deploy reliable solutions in the Point of Sale (POS) and secure mobile messaging markets using the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). Find the three letter acronyms? I thought you could.

This text is floridly non-neutral, irredeemable gibberish that resists editing for neutrality with the stratagem of vagueness and unintelligibility. Note also that this has been speedily deleted before as unambiguous advertising. No notability shown; reference is to a press release announcing a name change, without any showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have started a related AfD process for the pages AprivaPay, AprivaMail, and Apriva Reader, which are apparently all products from this business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt to add more relevance to the entry, I found several more references to the company that help point out why Apriva is important and should be included in in Wikipedia. They began working with the NSA in 2002. Later, as previously pointed out, Apriva entered into a contract with the DoD to provide wireless security support for the President, Vice President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. That, in and of itself, makes this company extremely important and worth the addition. On top of that, the company is apart of several associations and organizations that are responsible for setting security standards. Regardless of your opinion on my writing, there is clearly significance with a company that provides the upper echelon of one of the World's super powers with wireless security. I added in more independent and reliable sources to help provide more relevance and significance. Apologies for the gibberish, but I made an attempt to clarify. Bfeddern (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After having looked through the new references here are my two cents: The sources seem to consist almost entirely of press releases or articles written directly from press releases. Homeland Security Insight & Analysis might not be a business publication, but the article clearly states "Source: Apriva". The Pure Mobile seems to be an exception, but it is basically a blog post. What is needed is a couple of articles in properly published independent publications that don't just rehash material from press releases. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP I am not a spammer, and I am not affiliated with the company Apriva (do not work there, do not get paid by the company, do not communicate with the company). I am a noob at creating Wiki editions, and thus did not add in enough information on this entry to do it justice. My objective is to find areas that haven't been tapped, and add in information. I stick to business-related entries and football-related entries (view my history). Apriva has a definite significance, since they provide the secure communications for the Department of Defense. In the age of Wiki Leaks, it's amazing people are quick to flag as spam a wireless security company with US government contracts. It is also amazing that my writing was called out as gibberish, as I didn't realize that someone had to have a certain standard of writing. Based on several articles I have read on this site over the years, this is clearly not a standard that is being applied to everyone. As for the product pages, I will have to dig into those individually. Adobe has ALL of their products listed on Wikipedia, which is the model I tried to follow for those. First, I would like to ensure that all of my hard work on this addition isn't deleted. It would be a shame to delete the information. My efforts to ensure this article sticks will become daily so that an objective process is used in judging the content of this article (and other articles on this site, for that matter). Bfeddern (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In an effort to prove the important and relevance in this article, several valid citations were added from the following: Vending Times, Information Week, Dallas Business Journal, Homeland Security Insight & Analysis, and The Green Sheet. These are non-press releases and from reputable information sources. Bfeddern (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only get one vote, but made several edits to the page to help try and counteract the fact that this page is trying to be deleted. As I make edits to improve the page, I will add another line here even if it only counts as one vote. What do I need to do, beyond what I have done, to ensure that this page sticks and is not deleted? There are several other pages of companies in this industry that aren't ever put together as well as this page (USA_Technologies_Inc.). Still learning the process. Bfeddern (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. IMHO, exposure in business magazines doesn't make a company necessarily notable. EVERY company gets a write-up in one of those magazine. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So a company that provides wireless security support to the executive branch of the United States, as well as the Department of Defense, is not a notable company? Homeland Security Insight & Analysis is not a business publication. Can you please provide an example of what would make a company notable enough to be included into Wikipedia, so that some sort of benchmark can be set? Bfeddern (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (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.