Talk:ThreatLocker

Draft feedback

Thank you User:MSK for your feedback on this draft. Regarding independent analysis, I was curious how Cyber Heroes, Florida Trends fell short. The article is independent of the subject and provides in-depth coverage of ThreatLocker. Several different pieces from CRN (magazine) are cited and the publication seems to be used extensively on Wikipedia. It has a very clear ethics policy.

WP:CORPDEPTH outlines coverage should have "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation", and to me the following go beyond trivial coverage and include overview, description, and commentary:

• Exclusive: Cyber firm ThreatLocker to double staff and enhance product after $100M VC deal
  • This one is from Orlando Business Journal and includes overview of company since launch and description of what the company does.
• ThreatLocker Driving ‘Reimagined’ Zero Trust, Consolidation For MSPs: Partners
  • This article it goes into commentary and discussion as outlined by WP:CORPDEPTH

Other sources not in this draft that could be added if needed also include:

• Maitland cybersecurity firm ThreatLocker to use VC to continue rapid growth, Orlando Business Journal
• Inside ThreatLocker’s Rise from Startup to Global Cybersecurity Company, Irish Tech News
• ThreatLocker Is Spearheading Enterprise Cybersecurity Solutions, Orlando Magazine

Let me know, thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Florida Trends IMO doesn't meet WP:ORGIND, as is the CRN source. IMO (I can't access the OBJ sources so excluding those) a lot of these sources are just saying what ThreatLocker execs are saying in interviews without much independent analysis. msk 16:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the long wait, was busy yesterday afternoon. Those sources do seem to meet CORPDEPTH though, so disregard the AfC comment I left. msk 16:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look and confirming CORDEPTH. Might you be willing to update your comment on the submission with this update? If you're not interested in re-reviewing or accepting the draft, do you recommend I go ahead and resubmit? Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

As a principle, most AfC reviewers don't offer re-reviews, so it's probably best to submit and wait for another review. msk 18:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments left by AfC reviewers

• Comment: @Stephanie BINK: while I did retract what I said about CORPDEPTH, the questionable independence of the sources still stands as an issue that might need to be addressed. msk 21:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Noting for the record: Florida Trend article has some independent comments; Irish Independent articles are not trade press and a bit more depth about the founders than simply routine business coverage; TechRadar review is independent. Not amazing sourcing, but seems to meet the minimum required by WP:NCORP. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: The sources I checked are still a long shot from meeting WP:CORPDEPTH, I've found no independent analysis either. msk 18:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC) edited 18:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello, my name is Stephanie. I have a draft submission for editors. It is about the company ThreatLocker, who is being represented by Beutler Ink. Because of this, I am submitting it via AfC due to my conflict of interest. This draft uses sources from CRN Magazine, Florida Trend, The Irish Times, Orlando Business Journal, Irish Tech News, and Business Insider. Let me know if you have any feedback. Stephanie BINK (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviews

Hello editors! My name is Stephanie, I presented this article in AfC as part of my work for Beutler Ink. On behalf of ThreatLocker, I would like to propose updates to the page. I saw since approval a review from TechRadar was added and the new sentence does not seem to be balanced. The review is majority positive, landing at 4.5/5 stars with a final summary of: "Don't be put off by Threatlocker's unrefined UI. This is a powerful platform for any network manager who takes endpoint security seriously. It’s quick and simple to deploy, and works great."

The Wikipedia article's sentence, "A TechRadar reviewer said that ThreatLocker's endpoint security product had an "unrefined" user interface but many features." seems incomplete and narrow in its focus. I suggest re-balancing this paragraph to be in line with reporting, either by adding more from this review or using a different one.

I have refrained from providing specific language at this time and intentionally left writing about reviews for independent editors to neutrally draft, due to my inherent bias. However, if editors do not wish to draft, I can propose a new paragraph. Thanks, Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Stephanie BINK: Sure, added a bit more from the review. I couldn't find other genuinely independent reviews that were worth noting; I'd welcome links. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2026 (UTC)