Talk:Check Point

Proposed Changes to Product section on Check Point article

Please add this under the product section:

Next Generation Firewall – Running R80.x software, Check Point next generation firewalls and software platforms support small and medium businesses (SMB) to large enterprise data center and carrier-grade environments.

Each security gateway includes next generation firewall, IPS, VPN, WAF, SSL, and Data Security (DLP) as well as threat prevention technologies blocking known and unknown cyber-attacks. The security gateways are available as a cloud service, software-only products that can run on standard hardware, or dedicated security gateway hardware appliances.

References

Product marketing at Check Point (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I recognize that you've been working with Spintendo above on this addition, but I am not comfortable with its inclusion, as it is distinctly promotional in tone and reads like an advertisement. Please consider reading WP:PROMO for more information. –Erakura^(talk) 22:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion in product section

Hi, I appreciate your comment and sorry you decided to decline what others believe is a valid request. after a long discussion with Spintendo and John of reading we reached a paragraph that is completely not promotional but very descriptive of solution capabilities. there is no mentioning of superlatives or any other form of competitive comparison or advantage. it is pure description with all the relevant links and references provided. i would appreciate it if you could revisit this. if Spintendo found it relevant, than there's a way to accept that. many thanks for your consideration Product marketing at Check Point (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafi.kretchmer (talk • contribs) 07:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, my involvement thus far had been only to place the request in a state where it was reviewable. The COI editor is correct when they say others may feel that the request was valid (or at least was approaching a valid state). To be valid, a request needs to meet all the requirements for processing — ensuring the proper formatting, that all necessary Wikilinks are given, that the directions are clear and that the reasons for adding/deleting have been provided. That validity has nothing to do with a request's appropriateness. In other words, a structurally valid request may still be declined as being not appropriate for inclusion in the article. My involvement thus far had not yet answered the question of appropriateness.

If John of reading was working with the COI editor, then I'm happy deferring to their judgement, in which case they would be the one to implement the edits. I've closed the template as answered for now, because if John of reading wished to implement the edits, they wouldn't need it open to do so. If they don't wish to implement the request, then I would decline it as failing to meet consensus, owing to Erakura's post above; the template's decline setting would then be {{edit COI|D|C}}.

On a different issue, the COI editor's signature is problematic. The username for their account is Rafi.kretchmer, yet they have altered their signature to imply a shared account. This is unacceptable, and their username should not be altered in this manner. I've gone ahead and added an unsigned template to their last post, but I would ask that they modify their signature so that it states their actual username clearly. Regards,  Spintendo  08:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Spintendo: My involvement so far has been to point Rafi.kretchmer to the COI instructions and to add missing {{request edit}} templates. I'm not comfortable making this kind of assessment and do not plan to accept or reject the requests. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Account Name =

thanks for the clarification. I will consult John of Reading. thanks Spintendo for all your help in formatting etc. as i am new to wikipedia it helped me a lot. as for the user name, it is my personal user, linking to my personal email. i changed the signature.

Rafi.Kretchmer at Check Point 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafi.kretchmer (talk • contribs)

Discussion

@Rafi.kretchmer: I saw that you wrote to me but put it on my user page, and not my user talk page. I have corrected this for you. I've moved the discussion here so other editors can more easily participate.

Regarding what you are proposing to add to the Check Point page: I fully expect that you're not going to like my opinion, and that's OK. My view is that the addition is not at all encyclopedic -- it reads distinctly as an attempt to sell a product. It is something I would expect to read in a marketing whitepaper, not an encyclopedia. The most that would maybe be salvagable from this would be a brief, one sentence mention that Check Point sells firewall solutions for small-to-large businesses. Any more than that, and we're starting to give undue weight to this one particular aspect of the company in its article. (See WP:PROPORTION - in my view, this applies to all types of topics in articles.) Even then, I think the present content of the article as it stands covers this aspect of the business reasonably well.

I think it is important that I again bring to attention what Wikipedia is (and isn't) for. Quoting from "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means or promotion": "Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts."

At this point, consensus would be required to make this change to the article; as it stands I am not in favor of its inclusion, for all of the reasons I have just stated. –Erakura^(talk) 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Erakura: thanks for your insights. I will look at it again and revise accordingly. will share a new request for edit later Rafi.Kretchmer at Check Point 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)