Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heimdal™ Security

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Heimdal™ Security}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Heimdal™ Security}})

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up nothing cogent despite the claim that they are present in 6 countries. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, pure promo piece on a non-notable ROTM business. (Also likely UPE/COI, judging by the creating editor's user name and a quick look at the company website.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't see the previous instance which was rejected at AfC and then deleted, but the comments left by reviewer {{u|Rich Smith}} on the article creator's Talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnterfigher_Vladimir&type=revision&diff=970320666&oldid=970320535] look equally applicable to this newly-created instance. The article text does no more than describe the staffing and commercial history of a company going about its business, with no claim to encyclopaedic notability, and supported by references which fall under trivial coverage at :WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more routine coverage of opening of offices, etc., but also past coverage of a problem in their software ([https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47671346 BBC News: "Security flaw put RBS customers at risk of cyber-attack"]). Were the article to survive, information about that incident should be added to the text and references. However I don't see that as evidence of attained notability for the firm. Nor is there an article on the acquiring firm Marlin Equity Partners which could serve as a merge/redirect target. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: Per {{u|AllyD}}'s comment. I rejected the same or very similar article at AfC, and it looks like they somehow obtained Autoconfirmed early (as they have not made 10 edits) and made a new one in mainspace. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.