Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NinjaOne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. To the editor arguing to Keep this article, please review the comments from those advocating Deletion and not dismiss their concerns. WP:NCORP is a very strict standard to meet to avoid having promotional articles on Wikipedia. If anyone wants to work on this article in Draft space, I'd be willing to restore (or go to WP:REFUND) but know that you will need to submit it to WP:AFC for review and not just move it back to main space or it will be tagged for CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NinjaOne

[edit]

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

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)[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. 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. [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]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Two more refs .. two three.. plus they appear in tons of market reports which counts as independent research. SmileyShogun (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    global leader in their field but this with the tech radar piece should be enough.
    PHL OSG getting value for money from NinjaOne-VCT investment. (2022, Nov 16). Business Mirror https://orangemagazine.ph/2022/ph-osg-getting-value-for-money-from-ninjaone-vct-investment/ SmileyShogun (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://heimdalsecurity.com/blog/ninjaone-vs-atera/ (independent)
    In depth - https://btw.media/it-infrastructure/what-is-ninjaone/ SmileyShogun (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing you brought up GNG, given that we have seen coverage from the US , Europe and Asia, I believe Wikipedia:AUD would suggest it's notable. I've seen plenty of WP:NEXISTS and reports detailing it as a market leader and compared to AWS and Microsoft as competitors. IMHO opinion, your being to harsh in favoring deletion or perhaps cybersecurity isn't a specialty. There is a lot of borderline vandalism and degrading of pages in the cybersecurity fields and this feels like part of it.. especially since the nominator made no argument other than unsupported vague attacks nearly identical to every other page he nominated and hasn't participated at all in the discussion. SunnyScion (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would also like to mention it looks like this guy started this article last Sept of 2023 and then left it in his sandbox and didn't publish it until the Spring of 24' after they raised $231M in vc funds. That means this is highly unlikely a paid article so, I dont see the value in this type of deletion discussion or am i missing something? SunnyScion (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to go into any depth on your new sources - if you can't tell the difference between regurgitating press releases or announcements, or filling an article based on repeating quotes from execs or info from the company, then you are failing to grasp what is required by GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines, in particular, WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP.
With all that said, you've mentioned two things which are of note. First, you mentioned that there are "reports detailing it as a market leader" - are these "analyst reports" which provide in-depth analysis on the company (e.g. Gartner, Forrester, etc)? If so, send a link, in all likelihood those would meet GNG/NCORP criteria. Second, if there are lots of independent reviews of the product and these meet GNG/NCORP (lower bar, probably overall easier), then there's always the option to refocus the article so that it is about the product and not the company. HighKing++ 19:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. If not able to meet the ridiculous standards, there are plenty of those available to host the page instead. I am unable to locate sources meeting all four criteria (WP:SIRS) in the standard search, nor in TWL databases (which ended up consisting of press releases from 'wires), under either name. As mentioned by other participants, press releases are sent out daily, as part of SPIP activity for organisations and companies, and fail the tests for independence, routineness, and are usually not secondary. Two and three are routine coverage of funding rounds, the review listed receives affiliate commissions, Orange article is in a section for contributor and press releases, blogs are not considered RS as they rarely have an established editorial process or reputation, and BTW media is dubious on those counts as well. I do not see it appropriate to have a standalone article on this topic on English Wikipedia at this time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I am experienced enough to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to argue this case and I'm not sure where to find the market reports that would label them top in their field. I think your argument that they are routine funding notices doesn't take into account the additional coverage in the articles. TechRadar puts that notice on every page and will take commissions from any company who offers them. Their editorial is not in question or they wouldn't be on the approved sources list. Reviews are considered in depth for notability purposes via Wikipedia:Notability. I think this is a case where the closing admin should review the notability closely since there is a real conflict of opinion on the sources on such a big and notable company. Perhaps this shouldn't go to votes and might need independent review of available sources since I am not experienced enough to argue this. SmileyShogun (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This Bloomberg article is substantial beyond the notice and the tech radar should be enough. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-06/ninjaone-notches-1-9-billion-valuation-in-deal-led-by-iconiq
    There is also plenty of local coverage from Austin and Florida in local papers and the bizjournals. SmileyShogun (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I would agree with that rationale. Bloomberg and the Tech Radar are nough with the local coverage more than covering any deficiencies to cover WP:SIRS and WP:GNG. There are also substantial reviews from many other well known tech sites that Wikipedia accepts. My issue is in general, many of the review sites feel a little AI generated for my taste. It's nice to have discussions but these articles were already in the article and this discussion could have been avoided. SunnyScion (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, when editors that have been reviewing articles for years tell you clearly and unambiguously that the topic does not meet the criteria, your time will likely be better spent on another article topic, or editing an already existing article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I spent almost 9 months before I published the article and waited till two months after, they reached a $2B valuation to make sure it was notable enough. There are plenty of other articles w much less notability and without a 100 articles, books and scholar articles . Saying Tech Radar and Bloomberg aren't credible sources when searching gives you over 500 articles that use them as a reference without any issues. Apparently this deletion forum allows you to make any claims without backing them up with evidence.
    How do you afford to spend year's working 8 hrs a day for free? Has anyone read the TechRadar or Bloomberg article? SmileyShogun (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid and the nom made no arguments, and the two of you are arguing from a ridiculous pov when there is mountains of evidence. Apparently this company has come a fowl of someone and it's being attacked. It gets 80 people a day visiting the page but it's not notable.. The international audience of those visitors should with the mountains of press and reviews online, should clobber any notability issues. I'm not sure why relying on your editing history instead of a legit rebuttal is an authentic answer either. SmileyShogun (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031couldnt we assume this company will or is likely to achieve notability by either it's continued success or through the coverage of the failure of a $2B company? They get new press almost everyday, how is that not notable but the statue of Alice in wonderland I wrote about that gets 10 visitors a day is notable? SmileyShogun (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in depth. https://www.techzine.eu/blogs/security/119344/how-ninjaone-is-changing-endpoint-management/ SmileyShogun (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    already in this article without going to tech coverage:
    https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/2020/03/12/san-francisco-based-it-startup-to-expand-clearwater-office/
    https://www.costar.com/article/900538117/austin-based-it-management-company-leases-space-at-bay-arbor-place
    https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2021/08/17/software-firm-ninjarmm-moves-hq-austin-plans-keep-growing/8158416002/
    https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2021/03/12/ninjarmm-moves-hq-to-austin-from-san-francisco.html
    https://www.builtinaustin.com/2021/08/16/ninjarmm-new-austin-hq-hiring-75
    https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2022/04/12/meet-ninjaone-a-2022-best-places-to-work.html
    https://securitybrief.com.au/story/ninjarmm-continues-on-growth-strategy-with-new-backup-solution
    https://venturebeat.com/uncategorized/ninjaone-expands-data-backup-security-features-to-thwart-ransomware/ SmileyShogun (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I cant imagine this doesnt pass notability but I would hope whoever closes at least considers drafting the article until two sources can be agreed on. I'm not sure what deleting this article serves and why anyone would be anxious recklessly dispose of the work that was done. I mentioned earlier that Wikipedia:AUD addresses these situations and would favor a $2B international internet security company, I'm my humble opinion. SunnyScion (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NinjaOne&oldid=1251056345"