Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panorama9


 * 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. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:NCORP. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Panorama9

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established, tiny company with lots of industry media sources that cannot be trusted to be unpartial Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "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. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 13:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes that the pros are:One agent on one computer gathers all data from all other machines in the network.Comprehensive.</li><li>Tremendous amount of data organized in a very intuitive way.</li></ol> The review notes that the cons are: <ol><li>Data collection tedious without Active Directory integration.</li><li>Not all of the dashboard refreshes automatically.</li><li>No Mac support.</li><li>Limited policy engine.</li></ol> The review notes: "One disappointment: the policies were not customizable. There doesn't seem to be a way to create more complex policies or to define new requirements. In fact, this entire screen felt overly simplistic. Panorama9 had a list of rules, such as removable storage devices, strong logon passwords, and installing p2p applications. All I could do was turn the rules on or off. If they were on, then Panorama9 would alert me when a machine violated the rule. There didn't seem to be a way to add any new rules."</li> <li> The review notes: "One of the more unique features of Panorama9 is the Live Feed. To get there, go to the dashboard of one of the machines and then click the Live Feed tab (Figure C); you will see a real-time feed of any issue that arises on that particular machine. This could be a great help in troubleshooting an issue on either a server or a desktop."</li> <li> The article contains an interview with the company's CEO but has enough independent coverage to contribute to notability. The article notes: "The Copenhagen-based Panorama9 is billed as a comprehensive IT management system for small- and medium-sized businesses—the kind that probably can't support their own IT staff. You install the company's software on each of your Windows PCs (and in a few weeks, Macs too). The client lives in your System Tray, and almost immediately begins sending data back to the Panorama9 dashboard, which is accessible from nearly any modern browser."</li> <li> The article notes: "Cloud-based IT management platform Panorama9 has raised $900K in seed financing from private investors in Denmark. The company offers a dashboard that small to medium businesses can use to monitor and control all IT operations in their network. The system offers real-time alerts of issues and security vulnerabilities, as well as support across multiple devices and operating systems. Panorama was founded in Copenhagen and was first active in Scandinavia. It entered the US market in April of 2012, and will use this financing to deepen its American presence, as well as explore potential partnerships."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Panorama9 to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC) </li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: One more bold relist to consider Cunard's sources, if anyone wishes to contest them.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the sources shared by above. Reuters and ArsTechnica especially are both trustworthy sources and establish notability in my opinion. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources provided above, enough coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP Varousz (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, thanks to the sources provided by Cunard, which is enough to satisfy WP:NCORPJackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.