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. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhishMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by an anon with the following rationale "sources exist". Well, that's not enough - they are low quality/in-passing/business as usual. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. no conceivable notability.Probably a valid G11 A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Agree with DGG, this is probably a G11 A7 speedy. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not seeing how this fails notability. I found numerous coverage in a wide variety of news sources.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TeeVeeed: Would you be so kind and to link to the best of that coverage here, so we can discuss it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: :http://www.zdnet.com/article/phishme-raises-42-5-million-in-series-c-funding/ this was a good one. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-ransomware-attacks-grew-600-in-2016-costing-businesses-1b/ this is pretty good. A review of a recent report about a study they did: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-ransomware-attacks-grew-600-in-2016-costing-businesses-1b/ . This one explains what they do more in depth, like simulating phishing attacks and social-engineering http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/techflash/2016/07/what-a-leesburg-cybersecurity-company-plans-to-do.html. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the above sources help. The techrepublic article is about a general problem, though they wrote the report being quoted; zdnet is a mere notice; bizjournals is an unreliable PR source, Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with DGG's assessment of the provided sources. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. (athough DGG does appear to have !voted twice). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 14 April 2017 (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.