Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lookout (company)
Hi Melissa. The https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/technology/21cell.html The NYT reference fails the criteria for establishing notability as it is not "intellectually independent". It relies on information provided by the company or one of their investors. It is primarily an interview with John Hering, the CEO and with the CEO of Khosla Ventures, a venture capital firm that invested $5.5m. It is standard churnalism, complete with obligatory serious-looking photos of the founders doing techy things. Fails  and/or . THe https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/02/13/lookout-conquered-the-consumer-mobile-security-industry-now-it-just-has-to-prove-one-exists/#20ffeadb293c Forbes reference most likely fails  since it comes from the "sites" part of Forbes and is therefore considered as a blog. Even leaving that aside, most Forbes articles are churnalism and it would save a lot of time if we at AfD just accept that Forbes publications fail the criteria for establishing notability. This article is also not intellectually independent since it also relies on an interview with the CEO and fails  and . https://www.cnet.com/news/lookout-launches-fee-based-mobile-security-service/ The CNET reference fails for largely the same reasons as the others. Churnalism, not intellectually independent, relies on interview with the CEO, etc. Finally, arguable Techcrunch is a worse publication that Forbes (for the purposes of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability). Both TechCrunch references are based on company announcements or interviews or profile-raising announcements, etc. Neither of those articles are intellectually independent for much the same reasons as the others, failing  and/or 
— User:HighKing, 10:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:RS||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)