Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Technology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Technology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Technology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Technology/archive

Purge page cache

watch

This list includes a sublist of deletion debates involving computers.

Technology

Corvigo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tumbleweed Communications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, Internet, and Texas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliate WFAA and NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. - Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Conger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable person; I've read all the references and found no one that would address the subject independently and with a big attention. NYTIMES has its own announcement that it fairly nor deep, nor independent as they announced that Kate joined them. Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's the co-author of a newly released book that addresses Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter that itself has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC. She and co-author Ryan Mac have appeared on multiple TV outlets to promote their work. Her work as a technology beat reporter speaks for itself. Chammyboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep, [1] and [2]. This, in addition to everything else, is at notability Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Few more for good measure [3], [4], [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book's article elsewhere on here has 3 reviews, I'd say she passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:Qab Bi Av, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Agree with User:Oaktree b that WP:AUTHOR is the relevant standard, and that she meets criteria #3 - her recent book is the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", including a starred review in Kirkus, Washington Post, The Guardian, another review in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and The New Statesman. She also meets criteria #1 - her work as a journalist is widely cited. There are a lot of Google Books results for her name. In Google Scholar, searching for her shows a significant number of citations to her articles (examples: 188 citations, 51, 56). Dreamyshade (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR with their new book, I've added two reviews one from the LA Times and the other from the Guardian. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a pretty easy keep - Conger's been a New York Times reporter for years with controversial and popular articles such as [6] and [7]. In terms of WP:NOTABILITY, she was "She was the first to publish the controversial memo from the then-Google employee James Damore on perceived gender differences."[8][9]. That work was highly cited for the Google Memo. In addition, her work is on syllabi at Stanford University [10] and City University of New York [11]. RubyEmpress (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP User:Qab Bi Av EASY KEEP. Chammyboy (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Linux Link Tech Show

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:WEBCRIT and was WP:PRODed in 2012. The current sources are largely blogs, forums, interviews, or primary and I'm not finding much of anything else in a WP:BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Technology, Computing, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited secondary sources, in addition to reliability concerns, do not contain significant enough coverage to make this topic notable. Web search does not turn up other usable sources. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 15:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There are three non=primary sources in the references: the TechNewsWorld source is a trivial mention, and NetworkWorld (though reprinted in a book and ItsFoss are listicles with minimal coverage of the subject. I could not find anything online that shows significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, though with a podcast that's been going since 2003, it's possible there has been coverage that is no longer around/indexed by search engines. However, notability must be established rather than assumed, and the notability for this article's subject has not been. - Aoidh (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovox Snapper

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cell phone. I'd BLAR but it survived AfD 14 years ago, so I assume that would be controversial. On the topic of that AfD, it was claimed there was SIGCOV in these three sources: (all skunked now so you get the archived versions)

CNET: this is actually just a landing page for user reviews for the product, the "staff review" just refers you to their coverage for the show it debuted at. You can find that here, where it trivially mentions the phone. Not SIGCOV either.
Twice.com trivially mentions the phone at the end of this article, not SIGCOV
The link from accessmylibrary.com is dead. Apparently that's a Gale service, so I did my best to search Gale for the ostensible title of the article, but found no results. Also checked Gale for "Audiovox Snapper" in general and got zero hits. (Not even any trivial hits).

Folks, I think at the last AfD we maybe didn't check the links very well, because none of this adds up to significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator, nothing worth merging. Maybe leave a redirect but I doubt this particular model phone gets any significant search traffic in 2024. Andre🚐 23:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per nominator. ♠PMC♠ Gauravs 51 (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gauravs 51, this article is almost 20 years old. What benefit do you feel will come from incubating it in draftspace for six months? What sources do you believe are likely to emerge about an obscure defunct product from two decades ago? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it doesn't have any references. I am just hoping that the creator will add some new references to the article in the draftspace. Best will be redirect to Audiovox Gauravs 51 (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the situation here. There are no "new" references to add. I checked whether any sources existed as part of the nomination process and found absolutely nothing useful. So even if the creator – who by the way has only ever made a single edit – returned from their nearly 20 years of inactivity, there are no "new" references that they could add, because they don't exist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you sir. Now understood the full scenario. I have changed my opinions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AppShield

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AppShield the product does not appear to independently establish notability beyond Sanctum, the company that created it. As a testament to that the version of the article prior to my edits describes three different products or research projects entitled AppShield, all erroneously presented as a single topic. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Israel. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Merge (changed per discussion below) - Although it seems very likely that WP:COI editors are meddling with this and related articles, I think this passes notability. Doing a little more digging I found a couple more decent-quality sources, including a ZDNet article attesting to adoption in 2002. IMO this is a good example of how COI editors can actually make it less likely that their subjects get articles, when left alone they don't raise as many eyebrows. StereoFolic (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for improving the article! At this point I agree the content belongs somewhere, However it does still feel like AppShield and AppScan could be presented as sections within the Sanctum (company) article. Especially considering the company and the products were acquired together by Watchfire a combined article would be able to present a intertwined narrative without having three stubs that are unlikely to ever be fleshed out on their own. Brandon (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense to me. I've changed my !vote to merge. StereoFolic (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sanctum (company) as an unjustified SPINOFF. This opinion takes into account all the arguments above and the situation of both articles. gidonb (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gidonb.Andre🚐 23:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([12] [13] [14] [15]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SHM-CD

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. References are primary or just mentions. - The9Man ^Talk 08:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agreed, merge content to Compact Disc. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parking In Motion

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was kept at AFD many years ago, and it was probably the right call then. This is something I see in ancient maintenance categories - the project was very exciting in 2011 but never went anywhere, the app disappeared, and there was never any subsequent source published anywhere. The sources cited were all from the initial rollout and seem to be blogs, for the most part, but notable blogs. Still, they were and kind of industry-oriented ones that one might suspect were often just passing on press releases.

This is all fine and well when a startup becomes Uber or Reddit or something, there will be no shortage of better sources, but what if nothing notable ever happens after the initial marketing blitz? The coverage was limited and is incomplete, we can't really say anything about what happened with Parking in Motion after the initial hype window. It didn't succeed, but how? Why? The article will probably never be able to say. There's nothing to add to it, no other Wikipedia articles probably need to link to it. It's just... there, incomplete, forever?

But upon reviewing the sources, I dunno that it rises to the level of non-trivial, definitely not-advertising-related sources mentioned in WP:WEB. The LA Times reference looks impressive in the citation, but I tracked it down and it just says "Parking in Motion helps you find and reserve parking spaces. It shows rates and provides directions. Free for iPhone." in a roundup of a few dozen road trip-related apps. I don't think that's non-trivial coverage. But I invite you to review this and the other sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep: found sources [16] and [17], and the CNet one was also good. These sources establish sustained coverage over a year and just barely meets SIGCOV. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those were in September/November 2011 and the initial articles were April/May 2011, and the LA Times ones mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post. They still read like press releases: "But now you can know exactly what the parking situation is like before you arrive: Parking in Motion". I know this is a weird AFD because there are respectable news websites with paragraphs about Parking in Motion, but reading what they wrote, it does not feel like non-trivial coverage. I did find a working link to the CNET article, it's the best coverage I've seen. At least it's not just rewording a press release. But it still limits the coverage to the rollout hype, which didn't go anywhere. Without better sources, the Wikipedia article is stuck in the hype phase forever. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's at least four different months, which seems just borderline enough to establish Sustained to me.
mentions it's an archive of an earlier blog post
See WP:NewsBlog. The author's page says she is their reporter, and the references to blogging seems to be just the format.
The articles have clear bylines so I don't think they're press releases. Product news in general, especially for hyped products, nearly always reads promotional because the writers are hopeful to see where it goes. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is some coverage, it's all essentially trivial in nature. Rollout hype with no lasting impact does not seem to pass GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Defunct app that never really gained much critical attention beyond the initial buzz. No sustained coverage... Even when it launched, I still think it was a "weak keep" at best. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaOne

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

it lacks sufficient independent, secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, the article relies heavily on promotional language and primary sources, which compromises its neutrality and fails to provide verifiable third-party coverage. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This nom seems like a stretch and over reach to me. There are plenty of in-depth resources from independent 3rd party sources just by clicking the news or books tab on google. They are published several times a week. The nominator has several warning and a controversial editing history. Just seems like there are better things to spend time on. SmileyShogun (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: SmileyShogun (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. My company uses NinjaOne for our RMM services, and I needed to do research on it to become more familiar, and this Wikipedia article has a plethora of good reference articles and resources. There is no need to delete the article, and would be a loss of information for others like me. Jonkorf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — Jonkorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Page creator doesn't even make a legit rebuttal, they are attacking the nominator. – The Grid (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read several of the other deletion discussions by this nominator and this reminds me of another account deteriorating tech pages in the security sector. The nominator really doesnt make any specific claims about the article so this should be a keep. Assuming his nomination is legit he still faces Wikipedia:BURDEN as it looks to me this article has over 30 References and meets Wikipedia:GNG. I found References that could help improve the article in Google scholar and plenty of new press to update the article in the Google news to update the article since it's last major update. I somewhat agree with the same argument you made on another page he nominated when you said English probably isn't his 1st language here. There is no info on what he discovered in Wikipedia:BEFORE either. My vote would be to Keep. I wouldn't mind an expert to improve the article's tech info though. SunnyScion (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In case its appropriate here are links to the sources i found: news scholar SunnyScion (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a typo in my edits but also realized a significant amount of coverage also exists under its former name NinjaRmm. Here and here. You can read about the rebranding here which between the coverage from 4 continents and 15 countries and all the in depth coverage after their $231M financing round should far exceed the two in depth sources needed SunnyScion (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is saying none of the sources are any good and none exist. I would like to see some evidence he read the article and sources then, explain why none of the sources in Google news are good enough before taking an axe to an article with clear notability and coverage in Florida, California, Texas, the Philippines, Asia, and Europe over 10+ years. I'm open to a discussion but not a random axing with no regards for Wikipedia:NEXIST. SmileyShogun (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent reliable sources:
https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/07/endpoint-security-startup-ninjaone-lands-231-5m-at-1-9b-valuation/

https://uktechnews.co.uk/2021/09/21/ninjarmm-sees-rapid-revenue-customer-growth-as-work-from-anywhere-revolution-drives-international-expansion-product-acceleration/

https://venturebeat.com/uncategorized/ninjaone-expands-data-backup-security-features-to-thwart-ransomware/

https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2021/08/17/software-firm-ninjarmm-moves-hq-austin-plans-keep-growing/8158416002/
There are plenty more than the two needed. SmileyShogun (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]