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 Draftify. Sending this to draft space per consensus. It should not be moved back into the mainspace until notability is more clearly established. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpsRamp[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. Dewritech (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewritech: Instead of nominating the article a few hours after creation, why not wait a couple days to see how it develops? Also, why not tag it with ((notability)) and notify the relevant WikiProject before posting it to AfD? This seems a bit premature to me. Also can you actually elaborate on your reasoning, besides half a sentence? — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 20:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AfroThundr3007730: No evidence found that OpsRamp meet the following criteria of WP:NSOFT:

It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability.-- Dewritech (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ re-Draftification or delete May need to decide if it is primarily about the Company rather than the software ... WP:NCORP vs WP:NSOFT ... currently it uses a Company infobox rather than a Software infobox. Article creator seems relatively new and should we be seeking to draftification and seek advice at the WP:Teahouse (which may be not to continue) rather than delete? Not convinced WP:BEFORE was done but I think all I am seeing is press releases and company announcements ... however if confirmed as a rebrand/rename of Vistara IT then we have may have some notable transactions with Netflix which have been reported, also then the start date would have been prior to 2014. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a corporation as far as I can tell fails WP:NCORP (unless Vistara IT can be included ... which it isn't ... though perhaps it should for balance). If about software isn't really saying much description about it. Overall should likely not be in mainspace as is at this time.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think should be delete unless creator himself will accept userify or unless AfroThundr3007730 undertakes an intention to work on the article. Getting Notability might be hard unless there is a significant event.22:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

re-Draftify per Dmj-leighpark's remarks. Unless significant improvement is made, the page is better suited as a draft for now. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:20, 28 June 2018 (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.