Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NinjaOne

NinjaOne

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

NinjaOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(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)

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

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)

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. User:Jon Korf (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC) — User:Jon Korf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  In case its appropriate here are links to the sources i found: news scholar SunnyScion (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Independent reliable sources:

  1. https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/07/endpoint-security-startup-ninjaone-lands-231-5m-at-1-9b-valuation/
  2. https://uktechnews.co.uk/2021/09/21/ninjarmm-sees-rapid-revenue-customer-growth-as-work-from-anywhere-revolution-drives-international-expansion-product-acceleration/
  3. https://venturebeat.com/uncategorized/ninjaone-expands-data-backup-security-features-to-thwart-ransomware/
  4. 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)

• Comment There's a difference between sourcing that can be used to support information in an article and sourcing that may be used to establish notability. For the latter, this means reading the source to discover whether it contains "in-depth" "Independent Content" about the *company* and not regurgitated company information, quotes or announcements. So, looking at the sources provided above, TechCrunch rarely provides sourcing that meet NCORP and it is no different here with the source relying entirely on the linked announcement and quotes from individuals directly connected with the company, fails ORGIND. This UK Tech News article also relies entirely on repeating company information and simply reprints this PR from the company from the same day, fails ORGIND. This Venture Beat article also has no "Independent Content" and relies entirely on company information and quotes from their Chief Security Officer and the company itself, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Finally this in the Statesman on 17th August 2021 is the same content as in numerous other publications all talking about the new offices, for example this in the Austin Business Journal on the same date, this from Built in Austin from the previous day, and this PR announcement from the previous day - all relying on company information and quotes, all failing ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I find the fact you are making me run around chasing articles that obviously exist is ridiculous and annoying. I picked 4 different events so people wouldn't complain but your ridiculous standards about writing an article about a press release and assuming they did not fact checking or editorial review. Press releases are sent out daily for a $2B company w over a 1000 employees. They had one of the biggest raises of 2024 and are the top company in their field. Neither vote has make any declarations about the quality of the content, how to improve, a merge target or even suggesting draft.. There are a 100 independent reviewd of the software available including this one from Tech Radar. Also if you think the Statesman article covering local news isn't independent, I don't know how to even negotiate that view. I will work on another one, I'm sure one of the 50 in depth articles done when they raised $231M this year won't have as many quotes as tech crunch. Given the size, the amount of press, the traffic and the depth of this page, delete seems like an alternative outside and since I doubt anyone except SmileyShogun has done any looking and as he mentioned no info on WP:NExists. SmileyShogun (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)