Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Journal (2nd nomination)
To be fair, a publication's reputation is not part of our notability criteria for media per se — a media outlet can become notable ''because'' of its unreliability, as witness ''Breitbart'' and ''The Drudge Report'', if its unreliability makes it a subject of reliable source coverage ''about'' its unreliability. What's more definitive here, rather, is that the sources just aren't doing enough: TechCrunch is not a |reliable or notability-supporting source at all; the G&M "Interview with Christopher Hogg" is a Q&A interview in which an executive who's directly affiliated with the company is speaking about it in the ''first'' person, which isn't a notability-making source as it's not ''independent'' of the topic; the Metro piece is just a really short blurb that isn't substantive enough to count as a data point toward  if it's this close to the best you can do; and the G&M "does your backup need backup" isn't so much notability-building coverage ''about'' the company — it just uses a data breach at the company as an ''anecdote'' in a column whose ''core'' subject is the ''general'' concept of how important it is to back up your business data, which is not the same thing as notability-building coverage. So the sources present here just aren't getting it over  at all
— User:Bearcat, 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)