Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alna Group


 * 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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew and no delete !votes are present. North America1000 03:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Alna Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't see sufficient in-depth coverage to show that the company is notable. I found press releases, promo and/or routine coverage and trivial mentions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Only a few of the citations are actual press releases, others are genuine media mentions. The article was "dumbed down" because of the previous moderator, who found parts of the text not suitable. You've deleted the other references and all of the awards and called that "cleaning up"? Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Computer company from times of the late USSR, this alone is a serious claim of notability. Maybe some Lithuanian editor could look into Lithuanian language media for better sources about this company? Pavlor (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It was formed in the times of the late USSR, but i don't see how is that not notable. Even 28 years later, it's still one of the biggest IT companies in the region, which is pretty notable, don't you think? It basically shaped the today's Baltic IT market for years, bringing key players like Microsoft NAV to it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've updated the article, deleted a sentence and a reference, which might be considered as not useful. Added references from the Lithuanian government, another media outlet and a business magazine. So right now there is absolutely no information, that could be even remotely called out for marketing the company. The whole award section has been removed, there is only 1 external url (the official company website). The reference list currently consists of: biggest media outlets in the Baltics, independent business media outlets, official website of the Lithuanian government, website of the biggest media group in the Baltics, Alna Group official website. I followed every complaint from the moderators and improved the article time in time again to follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The added sources are a list that doesn't mention the article subject (CIOReview), a press release (kt.gov.lt), and tv3.lt, which reads like a redressed press release. This is the type of material that I mentioned in the nom. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * kt.gov.lt is a press release by the government, not by the company. CIOReview is meant to solidify the information about Doclogix (which is a part of the Group), not the group itself. You can clearly see it by the reference placement. TV3 - it is not a press release. There were more diversified references in the Award section, but you deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who issued the press release; it is still a press release, which is not useful for determining notability. Judging from your response, you don't understand what types of sources contribute to notability vs ones used to source facts. Sources need to have significant discussion about the article subject (in addition to other factors, e.g. WP:RS) to contribute to notability. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added references on involvement in National Cyber Security, references provided by the Ministry of National Defence and CCDCOE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You've added a reference that merely lists the CEO as a member. This is not in-depth coverage of the company . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I've removed those references as they are one-line listings and are about individuals within the company and not the company itself. Notability is not inherited. -- HighKing ++ 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. Perhaps references exist in other languages that meet the criteria for establishing notability but so far, the ones we have do not. -- HighKing ++ 17:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaning for a weak Keep. I don't like the article and I suspect the author may have an undisclosed COI, but I think the subject has enough coverage in Lithuanian language business media. It certainly has been one of the most prominent IT companies in Lithuania for 30 years. This article covers the company's history in detail, this and this cover the company's attempts to expand in other markets, this and this covers the company's change in business strategy, shifting from dependency on government contracts. Perhaps more interestingly and not covered in the article, 1 2 3 and 4 all cover various corruption allegations against the company, its owners and managers. Granted, not all the articles are very substantial, and there are blurred lines between PR releases and newspaper articles in Lithuanian press, but I think there is sufficient collective coverage for an article. And that's just a result of a quick search online. No longer a penguin (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that . I've looked at each reference and my comments are below:
 * vz.lt article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND as the article relies nearly completely on quotations from a company officer and is therefore a PRIMARY source which cannot be used to establish notability.
 * Next vz.lt article also relies completely on quotations from a company officer and therefore also fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
 * delfi.it article fails for the same reason as the previous two. It relies completely on quotations from a company officer.
 * this vz.lt article is a premium article and I cannot access the full content. I cannot therefore determine if this article meets the criteria for establishing notability.
 * 15min.lt article is a Press Release and fails WP:ORGIND as it is company produced
 * ve.lt article is primarily about a scandal that involves Alna as a beneficiary in a fraud and also directly involves one of Alna's major shareholders. The article uses extensive quotes from the major shareholder but the information provided in relation to Alna does not appear in those quotations. Also, this is more than a tangential mention. As such I believe this source meets the criteria.
 * This alfa.lt article is also commented on the scandal and mentions the involvement of Alna. I believe this source meets the criteria.
 * This vz.lt article is very short, more like a news bulletin but it mentions Alna. In my opinion, this is not enough to establish notability as it is a "passing mention".
 * this vz.lt also comments on the scandal and in my opinion meets the criteria to establish notability.
 * There are at least 2 suitable sources and that's enough to pass notability. I've struck my previous !vote and change it to Keep. -- HighKing ++ 13:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I corrected a small mistake (corrpution to corruption). Although I'm not sure that two stories, almost 15 years apart, one of which was in the heat of an election, with no further commentary from the authorities could be called "corruption since 2001" and the company itself "mired in corruption", what's your take on this? In the cited article of 2016 the allegations are not for Alna, but rather for the Director of the National Centre of Registers. This is the article you were looking for at vz.lt 15min.lt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokas2015 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn. While I'm not completely convinced by the sources provided, it is likely that there are further Lithuanian/offline sources that would be sufficient to demonstrate notability. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:13, 11 May 2017 (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.