Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspera GmbH


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Aspera GmbH

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable company. Article does not show notability. One author, apparently an employee; reads like a press release. No reliable sources; can't find any on Google either. akaDruid (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Other than the processor.com article I was unable to find anything which wasn't a press release online. Doesn't appear to be notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The reference from Processor (which appears to be a reliable source, although I'm not familiar with the publication) is probably sufficient to establish notability. I do not see a listing for this company in the German Wikipedia, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs)  12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The processor.com article is not a useful source for this article; it does not have any information on the company (aside from one employees name). Doesn't really count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. akaDruid (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Akadruid. There's a brief quote from a corporate official in that article, but that's about it. Pcap ping  02:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If the processor.com article is not a useful source for the article, I added 2 other independent sources from ECPweb: their 2008 and 2009 evaluation of SAM solutions, which remarks Aspera as "entitlement-centric". These should count as "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Kcweinberg (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very little coverage there. Two sentences. Pcap ping  02:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge There is also one book that briefly evaluates the SmartTrack product among others. But I don't see that as adequate coverage to establish notability, and so far as I can see the processor.com article is just citing one of the company's people as an expert, not even going into its product. So that is even more of a passing mention, although it would be useful in an article on the approach. I think that's the best thing at this point: to list Aspera among providers of software management tools, as the book is doing, because the book seems the best source on its notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is 1/4 of a page (286). Pcap ping  02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The main point of the article is to describe the technology (entitlement-centric) not the company (Aspera is noted as the creator). The technology is significant to software asset management, which is also in Wikipedia and a Google search for "entitlement-centric software asset management" produce hits from sites not related to the company. So, the technology is recognized by users and other providers. Kcweinberg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
 * The above comment is from the author of the article akaDruid (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, company is not notable. If the article is about the technology, the article is misnamed. Yngvadottir has a good suggestion. -- Nuujinn (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. An article about the concept of "entitlement-centric software license management" could perhaps be written, but here we're debating if this company deserves an article. Pcap ping  02:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  02:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is shot through with advertising, starting with the first sentence describing the business as a solution provider.  O RLY?  The remaining text is devoted to not particularly subtle salesmanship about how their technology or method is supposed to be superior to those of their competitors: Aspera is the first company to approach Software Asset Management (SAM) processes from the entitlement side.... This is why the entitlement-centric approach is distinct among SAM applications in that it was developed from the ground up to specifically manage software rather than evolving from a physical asset management application.... The catalog is the core of entitlement-centric SAM and provides the benefit of extensively automating all processes related to license and installation data, something older solutions could not do.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:40, 24 April 2010 (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.