Talk:TeamCity

Why is this not in the main system ? 88.211.22.194 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that some spammer removed the page. Then this kind user recreated it on his own account, trying to figure out what to do about it. I found a previous case of a deleted page - for a real politician, running for a real office!! - but I could not figure out how to restore the page myself. Now that he's gotten alot of press coverage, and probably due to personal lobbying by the campaign, it is finally up again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Moulton This is a huge travesty. Why is it so easy to delete real pages? Sigh. Thank you Encyclopedant! I don't work at Jetbrains, but I used TeamCity on my prior project. TC is referenced on the CI compariaon page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_continuous_integration_software That behavior also is similar to the above politician - he was listed on the page of candidates but with a red/no-such-link link. @Encyclopedant, I hope you can elucidate us on how to help these problems! Kissedsmiley (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous to suggest this isn't notable enough to be included in WP. --2607:FCC8:D500:3400:84CE:E20F:9973:6E4B (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. See WP:N. That's the guideline for determining what can and cannot be considered as notable. If no one writes about a subject, it's not considered notable. It applies to all products, people or objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

SolarWinds breach
I've added back in a statement about the ongoing investigation related to the SolarWinds hack. I'm sure that it's noteworthy but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add since it's ongoing. Decided to be WP:BOLD with it. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not notworthy. It is WP:RECENTISM. But clearly you have a WP:POINTY reason for restoring it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reason I put that back in (with slight adjustments) is because the previous removal only talked about lack of sources. The rest of the justification here in talk was mostly about it being noteworthy and me voicing out the concern that it may still be inappropriate because it's ongoing. Thank you for linking to recentism, I'll keep that in mind. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is still a single source and the company denies it. It should probably not be as prominent as it is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should I move it out of the lead to a separate section? I'll also add their response given to Forbes . Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really as there isn't a proper section for it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for now. Consensus on the main article Talk page (Talk:2020_United_States_federal_government_data_breach) seems to be the same - to wait and watch. Thank you for the feedback. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 07:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)