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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xangati (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)

Previously deleted in 2011 and then recreated in 2015. I believe there was a COI issue there, but it was eight years ago and the account involved hasn't edited since. I don't think any of the issues raised in 2011 have gone away since then: at heart, there's just not enough coverage of this company for it to have been notable.

None of the sources presently linked from the article are any good for notability. They're all first-party, from people involved with the company itself.

Here are the sources I turned up that might establish notability (i.e., third-party coverage):

• CRN announcement of acquisition.
• Network World coverage, marked as 'opinion'. Fairly short.
• More 'opinion' from Network World.
• Review in ITPro.

I don't think this is enough. These are a mix of routine coverage of industry events and lightweight blog-like commentary; the ITPro article is easily the meatiest of the lot of them, but even that's tending marginal (still fairly shallow, and not the world's most renowned information source). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Computing, Internet, and Companies. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sources above are (1) an article about the company acquisition, which NCORP specifically calls out as trivial coverage, (2) and (3), marketing churnalism, and (4) a review, which is a single WP:PRODUCTREV; such articles require multiple reliable sources, not a single review that focuses on the product and not the company itself (and even that would fail WP:NSOFT if the article was rewritten to focus on the software). - Aoidh (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no acceptable WP:SIGCOV per Aoidh. PopoDameron ⁠talk 00:52, 30 March 2023 (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.