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 keep. Sandstein 09:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Ping Identity

Ping Identity (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't passes general company notability guidelines and has been recreated after being deleted previously. Zinzhanglee ( talk) 08:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry. I came across reports that Ping was going public and thought they were notable enough. This would be my first page getting deleted. And I'm fine with that. But would it be better for me to provide more information on them? retiredprogrammers ( talk) 12:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete, somewhat reluctantly as this is a significant company in its niche marketplace. However the reality is that there is a lack of independent in-depth coverage. There are lots of product announcements, blog articles, and in the last few days a lot of news relating to the IPO, but these don't help meet the WP:NCORP criteria. I am sure there will be an article about Ping in time, but right now there's just not enough to meet the criteria. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 19:16, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I have struck my !vote based on the additional sources that have since been identified. Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 08:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep See WP:LISTED: many of the IPO-related stories, as well as the coverage of the major private capital raises prior to the IPO, are more than sufficient to demonstrate this now-public company has sufficient notability to meet the WP:NCORP guideline. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 19:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep See WP:LISTED: I just added Bloomberg, CNBC, Crunchbase refs. Since I created it I'm not actually sure if I get a vote. Also as a former software developer I can be somewhat pedantic but after reading the notability guidelines I'm still not sure I have a good understanding of what notable really means. If the creator of a page doesn't get a vote please feel free to delete this bullet. retiredprogrammers ( talk) 23:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak delete. One in-depth and seemingly independent piece of coverage ( [1]) but the source is so-so (linked-in blog), other than that, press releases and their rewrites covering business as usual. This fails WP:NCORP and GNG. Ping me if anyone wants me to take a closer look at any other sources (nothing else present in the article as I said raises above PR level). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ Piotrus:, @ Curb Safe Charmer: I think this Reuters story, this Denver Post story, this Wall Street Journal story all certainly qualify. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Nominator is a blocked sock. MER-C 16:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per the independent and reliable sources identified by UnitedStatesian. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Chiswick Chap and UnitedStatesian. 4meter4 ( talk) 00:36, 30 September 2019 (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.