Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atera (software)
- 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. ✗plicit 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Atera (software) (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)
Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 09:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- scope_creep, can you elaborate why the coverage cited in the article is not enough? E.g. the article in TechCrunch. Thanks Uziel302 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Uziel302: Are you getting paid to write this artice? scope_creepTalk 09:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- scope_creep, no, I am just Israeli interested in tech. Uziel302 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Uziel302: Are you getting paid to write this artice? scope_creepTalk 09:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete - Since TechCrunch was specifically mentioned above, Churnalism such as routine funding announcements that parrot press releases do not show notability for an article's subject. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, since the sources present in the article are all of this nature and I couldn't find anything better online. - Aoidh (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, for example here and here. Also rename and rework to Atera (company) which the article is really about. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- That first references as a bit of PR and an interview fails WP:ORGIND. The second one is a fundraising profile fails WP:ORGIND another block of PR with the founders and as its routine business about funding it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can't find the press release that this is based off of, but that phrasing is copy-pasted to other churnalism pieces as well. If Walla.co.il wrote that article (therefore owning the copyright) and didn't just copy-paste a press release you wouldn't find that wording on other websites, but with a press release they freely copy the wording because the company wants it spread around. Same with this one, copied here. These are not sources showing significant independent coverage, it's churnalism rewording press releases from the company itself. Neither one of those show notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- These are the routine reactions that one can expect after a keep opinion at WP these days. It's not about the company, it's about {insert any parts of the company operations here}. And there must be a press release because all independent journalists at independent news portals are con artists, I just happen not to be able to find any press release which should have been all over the internet, just not this time. And this can go on and on under someone's opinion. 50 such reactions? 100 such reactions? There within minutes! No space for dissenting views, however weak the responses will be. I invite everyone to take a fresh look at the sources and at the policies, as I have done, and to express their opinion, whatever it might be! The nominator had their say in the nomination, now it's up to the community to decide! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- When you share links to churnalism as a reason to keep an article, it's not unreasonable for someone to point out the problem with those links. Comments about "WP these days" have nothing to do with this article's subject or why it should be kept. I also said nothing about "all independent journalists...are con artists" so that's a strawman argument; you're commenting against things no one has suggested. The problem isn't that all sources have issues, the problem is that these two sources in particular have issues, and while you're entitled to your opinion, your opinion is not immune from examination, nor is your opinion consistent with how Wikipedia treats churnalism sources. - Aoidh (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- The sources are great. This response and the next many responses were predicted above. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- So moving to trying to prove its notable to attacking editors working in good faith. You seem to always do this.
I'm thinking of taking you to Ani. I will look at the your Afd history and see what I can find. If I find enough and there is no outcome at Ani, I'm going to take you to Arbcom.I've had my fill your antics. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)- You can try to shut anyone up. It does not make the problem go away that people are afraid to share their opinion without endless arguments. On the contrary, it only worsens it! gidonb (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following why you "predicting" that your comment would be responded to is relevant, especially since that doesn't address the problem with the sources, which despite the unsubstantiated claim, are far from "great" (whatever that means). They do not contribute to the notability of the subject, which has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's all I'm interested in discussing. - Aoidh (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's all relevant for me. Other people will write other opinions after analyzing this AfD and draw different or similar conclusions! Wikipedia needs to move to a system where providing one's opinion is less stressful and time-intensive. Let the person closing the discussion decide who has the best arguments and, of course, the respondents when we are inspired by each other! gidonb (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Let's please stick to the discussion of sources, personal attacks do not move the discussion forward. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's all relevant for me. Other people will write other opinions after analyzing this AfD and draw different or similar conclusions! Wikipedia needs to move to a system where providing one's opinion is less stressful and time-intensive. Let the person closing the discussion decide who has the best arguments and, of course, the respondents when we are inspired by each other! gidonb (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not following why you "predicting" that your comment would be responded to is relevant, especially since that doesn't address the problem with the sources, which despite the unsubstantiated claim, are far from "great" (whatever that means). They do not contribute to the notability of the subject, which has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's all I'm interested in discussing. - Aoidh (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- You can try to shut anyone up. It does not make the problem go away that people are afraid to share their opinion without endless arguments. On the contrary, it only worsens it! gidonb (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- So moving to trying to prove its notable to attacking editors working in good faith. You seem to always do this.
- The sources are great. This response and the next many responses were predicted above. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- When you share links to churnalism as a reason to keep an article, it's not unreasonable for someone to point out the problem with those links. Comments about "WP these days" have nothing to do with this article's subject or why it should be kept. I also said nothing about "all independent journalists...are con artists" so that's a strawman argument; you're commenting against things no one has suggested. The problem isn't that all sources have issues, the problem is that these two sources in particular have issues, and while you're entitled to your opinion, your opinion is not immune from examination, nor is your opinion consistent with how Wikipedia treats churnalism sources. - Aoidh (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- These are the routine reactions that one can expect after a keep opinion at WP these days. It's not about the company, it's about {insert any parts of the company operations here}. And there must be a press release because all independent journalists at independent news portals are con artists, I just happen not to be able to find any press release which should have been all over the internet, just not this time. And this can go on and on under someone's opinion. 50 such reactions? 100 such reactions? There within minutes! No space for dissenting views, however weak the responses will be. I invite everyone to take a fresh look at the sources and at the policies, as I have done, and to express their opinion, whatever it might be! The nominator had their say in the nomination, now it's up to the community to decide! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, also nobody appears to be able to point to specific sections in sourcing that meet both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)- Delete all I find are funding announcements and some product mentions, nothing about the history of the company or anything at length about them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.