Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aras Corp (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Aras Corp
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete. Non notable company. No redeeming characteristics that make it worthy of a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk -
 * I'm sorry, but what do you mean by non-notable?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

contribs) 06:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Snow keep Clearly notable. Sources present in the page do establish notability (for example, look at this Wall Street Journal article Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Microsoft and Open Source? Aras Leads the Way Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Aras Embraces Microsoft .NET Platform to Offer Open Source PLM Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Aras Move Puts New Spin on Open Source Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or this Aras is First Enterprise Open Source Solution Certified for Microsoft Windows Server 2008 Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Autodesk, Aras and Integrated PDM / PLM story
 * http://www.upfrontezine.com/2011/upf-708.htm
 * Aras Innovator: PLM on a Shoestring
 * Aras Innovator: PLM Done Differently
 * Aras Sponsors the Microsoft Global Energy Forum
 * Aras Sponsors the Microsoft Global Energy Forum, Newswire
 * Aras Announces Availability of Enterprise PLM Platform on SQL Server
 * Aras Corporation
 * Have I made my point? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's much much more!!!! Muahahahah. To those that say its non-notable, I'm tempted to give more sources. The company is clearly notable.... Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad if some kind soul could prove me wrong Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I've made my comments on the articles talk page some time ago. I think it's pretty rude of User:Alan Liefting to propose this for deletion again without addressing my comments on the talk page after las ttime he proposed this for deletion. Here is what I wrote last time:

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because as poor as the article is, the product and company appear to be noteable. Try searching for "Aras upfront ezine", "Aras Autodesk", "Aras Dassault" and I think a number of interesting stories and articles come up.
 * Autodesk, Aras and Integrated PDM / PLM story
 * http://www.upfrontezine.com/2011/upf-708.htm (disclaimer, the article mentions me)
 * Aras Innovator: PLM on a Shoestring
 * Aras Innovator: PLM Done Differently

While the first of those is a straight forward blog the other three are quite respected, or at least I've seen them before. So I think this article could grow to be useful. I've only looked at Aras' PLM software I don't know anything about what else they do. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Improve article or Delete - Keep per the 2+ RS found by Northamerica1000. The company MAY be notable, but the fact remains that the current article lacks independent reliable sources to prove it so. My admittedly incomplete spot checking of the links provided by Bonkers The Clown show that the WSJ "article" is 53 words of coverage from a news release, and some of the others are also simple pickups of the same News Release. I didn't check the links from DuLithgow, but If there are sources that meet WP:RS in there, I still don't see them cited in the article. Celtechm (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not too fussed about this article, but it's been growing for about 5 years, there is industry awareness of this company and their flagship product. Celtechm's comment that the article is poor is quite true. At least two of the four sources I've noted are well read sources in the AEC industry. Does the fact that their contents haven't been references from the article actually have any bearing on whether the subject is notable? I've been slammed in the past for deleting entries on Comparison_of_CAD_editors_for_AEC because they look barely notable and have no wikipedia page at all. So I'm trying to learn from this process. List_of_policies_and_guidelines_to_cite_in_deletion_debates sure looks interesting. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NRVE: topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed... with much effort obviously spent to find so many unreliable sources, I had assumed that the reliable ones did not exist. That's one reason that citing them IN the article is always a best practice, even if we can rely upon Availability in AFD dicsussion. Celtechm (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:PRESERVE an editing policy, not a deleting policy? I don't think its quite relevant. But anyway, sans that, I agree with your argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Examples:, , , . See also: WP:not notable and WP:Just unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:16, 5 September 2012 (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.