Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aras Corp (4th 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

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

I myself was about to speedy as G11 but I noticed the other AfDs, which I find unbelievable that they closed as Keep considering my examinations of both the listed sources here and also the AfD simply found press releases, interviews, trivial coverage including about the company's funding and finances. Considering how we have changed since 2012 (especially about advertising), this certainly needs better attention now. SwisterTwister  talk  22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment The nomination does not cite any policies or make a deletion argument.  Is this a WP:NOT issue?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I quickly found a 2012 source on a WP:BEFORE check in Google news from the Boston Globe,, that states, "Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras ­software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007."  Since the nominator's preparation missed this article, and the nomination dwells on incredulity and unsourced claims such as how Wikipedia has changed since 2012, I tend to assume that WP:BEFORE was not considered to be important to the nomination.  Then I glanced at the first AfD and found mention of awards and saw an article from the Wall Street Journal, and then I opened the 2nd AfD, which is a mass of sources.  One editor there has found sources from 15 different publishers.  A glance at the article shows that the company is multi-national.  I also checked investing.businessweek.com and found .  The two articles I have cited are sufficient to pass WP:GNG.  I looked for WP:NOTPROMOTION without really seeing what they want changed.  If anything, company funding and finances would improve the article.  It is certainly not a deletion argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Now that this has been relisted, which it should have been, I will note that both the sources above and this article itself still have no actual convincing substance. I will note that Keep vote essentially bases that news focusing with funding and financing are acceptable, but these in fact simply emphasize PR, not substance. SwisterTwister   talk  07:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been asked a question to explain if your nomination was a WP:NOT issue, yet your nomination still doesn't seem to have a policy-based argument. "Substance", for example, is not a policy-based argument.  "Actual convincing substance" is verbiage for "substance".  At Wikipedia, we don't tell reliable sources what they can talk about.  This is fundamental to the way that Wikipedia operates.  Otherwise, we'd have editors arguing about what Wikipedia should cover based on their personal opinions.  One of the sources your post just panned, Bloomberg, has an army of reporters, and reliability is essential to their business model.  At Wikipedia, we consider them to be a reliable source.  The other source your post panned, The Boston Globe, our article states, "The Boston Globe has consistently been ranked in the forefront of American journalism."  Reliable sources remain reliable sources when they discuss funding and financing.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment One does not have to explicitly quote policy when nominating an article to AfD (but it helps). Indeed anyone not being obstinately obtuse would read substance as more than a trivial mention (which is part of WP:GNG). It also doesn't matter if the company is multinational or whatever. All that matters is the depth of coverage. Which it seems this company has, but your line of reasoning is flawed.--Savonneux (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the evidence to support this interpretation of another editor's word choice. This diff uses the phrase, "this article hardly had any actual substance", where "substance" is not being used as part of a WP:GNG argument (WP:PROMO was cited for a deletion argument, diff).  We should be able to agree that "substance" is not a policy-based argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Focusing on the issues: WP:CORPDEPTH, as well as WP:AUD and WP:CORPIND, is satisfied by the Boston Globe, InfoWorld, and MSI. FourViolas (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- does not meet CORPDEPTH. InfoWorld is a trade publication, potentially non independent from the tech industry. Boston Globe alone is not sufficient as "significant coverage" (one article). The article reads as an advertorial for the company; this information can easily be found on the company's web site and is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pruning comment -- I trimmed the article a bit by removing unneeded section breaks and self-cited material. I also removed intricate detail cited to a directory listing (potentially non-independent source) and another's company's corporate blog: see diff. There's no depth here. Still delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, although on a weaker level, per a review of available sources. See source examples below. North America1000 01:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Computer World
 * Info World
 * The Boston Globe
 * MSI
 * Boston Business Journal
 * Design News
 * Engineering.com
 * Product Lifecycle Management in the Era of Internet of Things:, ,
 * Comment: the coverage appears to be trivial; for example, the Boston Globe article appears to be based on the interview with the CEO: "Frustrated by the slow pace of business, founder Peter Schroer had a realization: "Selling corporate software was not profitable, and the scalability of the business was limited to the number of feet on the street."" Etc. The last entry, which looks like it comes from a book, is the collection of conference proceedings from IFIP PLM conference. Since none of the authors are recognized experts in the field, I believe this should be considered to be a self-published source that does not carry weight. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I myself examined these and they are not convincingly substantial. SwisterTwister   talk  19:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per a handful of the sources found by posters above. I don't think all work, but there is some significant coverage here:, , , and , and , which is enough on its own to pass WP:GNG, and I haven't even done a google search yet. I also don't quite understand the earlier argument against InfoWorld. Seems a fine and reputable trade publication to me. Yvarta (talk) 11:27, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments on the sources offered by Yvarta just above:
 * Bizjournals -- not a top tier pub at all
 * Interview with CEO
 * Same Boston Globe article already discussed
 * Retelling of a customer case study / press release
 * Very same Boston Globe article
 * All of this is essentially PR for the company with no substance. I don't see how this passes GNG or CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The Info World article is not an interview. It has quotes, but is not entirely an interview. The Computer World article is not a retelling of a case study nor is it a press release at all. When reliable sources report about topics, it's not all automatically somehow "PR" by default. North America1000 03:11, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * For CORPDEPTH, I would expect to see (1) consistent coverage in local press; (2) mentions in business press (i.e. Business Week); (3) financial press ( i.e. Fortune); and (4) attention from academia (ideally).
 * In the case of Aras, we get some minor coverage in the local press, plus some mentions in trade press, which is fluffy and is clearly PR driven. It really does not tell us much about the company, its success, its strategy, its role and position in the industry, etc -- insufficient to build an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unclear why you're providing commentary about the notability of a different subject (AAON) as some sort of comparison, which may confuse those readers who may only skim through the discussion here. This discussion is about Aras Corp. North America1000 03:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I redacted above to make the comment more general. Overall, the coverage listed does not show an independent interest in the company; it's all local or trade press driven by self-promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You speculate and theorize that "all" of the sources are "driven by self-promotion", but provide little proof for such assertion. North America1000 03:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct, but this could also be called "editorial judgement" that we are expected to exercise, right? In short, not much of the coverage is independently verifiable. For example, the assertions, republished by Boston Globe ("Since [2007], Aras’s revenues have increased 50 percent each year, on average; client downloads of Aras ­software are up tenfold, to more than 1,000 companies each month, from 100 in 2007") are just claims by the company. It's doubtful that The Globe got access to the company's audited financials to have been able to draw these conclusions independently. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Um... like 90% of reputable articles are just journalists reporting on press releases, quarterly reports, SEC releases, and "insider" management gossip (this includes Forbes, Business Insider, and the New York Times), so in the end, are we only supposed to rely on articles based entirely on Freedom of Information requests? Because even that information is usually redacted to the point of being near useless, excluding journalist commentary. Yvarta (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, as per your argumentum ad absurdum, casting aspersions on the fact-checking of reliable sources is not a pathway to TruthTM. Unscintillating (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There are still many issues being discussed here. Relisting to give more time for discussion and a clearer consensus. -- Dane 2007  talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane 2007  talk 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment No need for a relist, consensus has not changed since the unanimous "Keep" at the last AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer - The still questionability of all of this is still not actually substantial as all sources have essentially been based from PR and PR-like sources. Commentd suggesting this should automatically be kept is not meeting WP:CCC, thus, as always, keep votes can be disregarded if not substantially convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  02:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Assertions of sources being based from public relations sources should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. The articles I provided above are (except for one, and the book source, which is a book) bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America1000 11:44, 16 August 2016 (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.