Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pramati Technologies (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 delete. The keep vote be low-participation editor Sv72 is given little weight. A sheer volume of media mentions does not overcome the consensus that coverage of this subject is PR or otherwise unusable to show notability. No prejudice against refunding to draft if better coverage in independent reliable sources can be found and incorporated. BD2412 T 21:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pramati Technologies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the company profile in Wikipedia. there is nothing to write about this one and non-notable enough for now. Intentions and purpose are clearly to make wiki presence. Light2021 (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  The article includes analysis from an analyst: "In trying to break into the midmarket, Pramati will compete against some major high-tech companies, including Hewlett-Packard, which is giving away a basic version of its application server. 'It's a small company that says they're going to compete on price, but how are you going to compete with IBM for example on price?' Illuminata analyst James Governor asks. 'IBM could give it away until the cows come home.' Pramati's success will depend on whether it can partner with large distributors and resellers and convince some major independent software vendors to bundle the application server with their products. In addition, Pramati's tools are going to have to be substantially easier to use, a challenge given the fact that J2EE is known as a difficult platform."     </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li> The article has a section titled "Pramati Technologies". The article notes: "Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London. After winning some key customers in India it aggressively marketed its products – the Pramati Server 4.1 (an application server) and the Pramati Studio 3.5 (component development lifecycle tools) – to global companies like CitiGroup, Ericsson, and Standard Chartered Bank and ended up winning by being price-competitive and by providing inexpensive support. According to the company, “Pramati Server is the right choice for small-to-medium businesses and independent software vendors, who need fully standards compliant application server platform that provides classic enterprise-class features, scalability and performance demonstrated through industry-standard benchmarks”11: http://www.pramati.com/index.jsp?id=corporate" The articles includes information from the founder.</li> <li></li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pramati Technologies to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Again just COPY-PASTE job and filled the entire AFD with ridiculous comments. is there any point of this? are you reading any of these articles yourself or your strategy is to mislead others by posting entire list of articles so no one can actually read what is written there? tell me any significant coverage analysis from the above links? how on this is called a media covergae? this is typical writing of a corporate profile which you quoted as if its something we should really care about - "Pramati Technologies Private Limited (PTPL), one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia, headquartered in Hyderabad, India was incorporated in 1998 with seed capital from the likes of Citigroup and Intel Capital. PTPL is a global provider of Java software development technology (an end-to-end Enterprise Java platform vendor) with offices in New York, San Jose, Hong Kong, Singapore and London". Light2021 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "one of the Red Herring 100 Private Companies of Asia". - Red Herring is black listed scam which takes money for giving awards to companies. all of the above articles pasted without analysing and even reading it. It is a waste of community time to actually do Cunard work of analysis on each articles and really find some meaning of ridiculous reference Bombing. You have been suggested several times by many people to keep it simple, but still you keep repeating same thing again and again and once again. kindly review this please if this is ok? - David Gerard (talk) Adamant1 (talk) Light2021 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed the Cunard-spam again. He stopped doing this after people started speaking of behavioural remedies for this repeated filibustering of AFDs with Googled references and then blankly asserting they were RSes, even when they really obviously weren't with the slightest checking - if this continues, we may have to resort to that - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, commercial spam - Cunard's list of blindly googled sources is, as usual, clearly unchecked and worse than useless - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Myself, I find Cunard's work very useful, and his general technique is one I adopt mysel, though not in such elaborate form: the detailed analysis of sources is what is necessary to make accurate determinations. Like many of us, I do not necessarily agree with his analyses. In fact, in most discussions of this sort I find that many or even most of the sources he considers acceptable are not acceptable for the purpose, and generally other people have the sme opinion, as it seems they do here. Nonetheless, it is extremely valuable that he finds and presents them to us so we can judge them for ourselves. I wish it were possible to do so in all discussions. On some infrequent occasions, one or more of the sources he presents have been enough to change my opinion on the article. (It's rare enough that I usually mention it!). His opinion of what meets WP:NCORP is usually different from the present consensus, and I in particular have worked very long with others to make the present more rigorous consensus. But I think he is entitled to express his own, and I think our discussions are the better and stronger for having his challenges., I almost always agree with you on articles of this sort, but I do not try to hide opinions I disagree with. I advise you to revert your hatting.  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that most voters are casual participants and do it based on the "existence" of sources. They don't bother to read the sources to determine if they fit the particular notability guidelines. If people even know they exist in the first place. For instance in another AfD a bunch of people voted keep based on the existence of a source that was a letter to the editor. No one bothered to check that it was reliable before they voted. I see it happen all the time with Cunard and the few other editors that do this type of thing.The AfD closer isn't going to check all the sources before doing the close to make sure what people were voting on was legitimate either. Nor should they have to. Maybe it's great for Cunard because the articles get keep like he wants, but it's not for the AfD process. I don't think the few times when it's valuable make up for the multitude of times it clearly isn't either.


 * Also, I don't want to see notable articles be deleted anymore then anyone else does, but him and the other people who do this rarely save otherwise notable articles. Mostly they just get non-notable articles kept that shouldn't have been by exploiting the ignorance (not in a pejorative way though) of casual keep voters or the articles just get deleted anyway. So there's zero reason he can't just post the few sources he knows are good and leave it at that like everyone else does. It's not like the other sources can't be added to the articles talk page if they would help expand it. People hardly scour closed AfDs for sources to expand articles with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * before people can analyze sources, they have to find them. To do that, they need to look carefully. at least does that. As I said, I usually disagree with his judgements, but he provides the material to judge.  I want to see all the proposed evidence, and I will evaluate it myself, not have people just post the evidence they think favors their position.  In my experience over thirteen years, most afds  that go wrong do so because people make snap judgments, and they're as likely to do it one way as the other. (A much more difficult group of errors are keeps or deletes out of prejudice or I like/don't like it).  To have productive discussions, you need to have argument, not follow-the-leader.   DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see the evidence that Cunard looks carefully for his sources. It's pretty easy to do a search and copy/paste a bunch of links with the name of whatever the AfD is about into the edit window. Going by the sources he's repeatedly provided it's extremely likely that's what he's doing. There's really only two things he could be doing here. Providing bad sources he hasn't reviewed or he's intentionally providing sources he has reviewed that he knows are bad. There isn't really a third option outside of those for using a letter to the editor as a "reliable" source or calling an article that just says "Pramati Technologies" and nothing else in-depth coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He at least finds them for us to look at.  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Adamant1. Cunard comes in, floods an AFD with a wall of text and then insists with ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE that these are FANTASTIC, TOP CLASS sources ... and then half turn out to be obscure semi-vanity books he clearly found in a quick Google Books search, or news articles that are clearly churnalism. Cunard's judgement is bad, and his posting behaviour is obnoxious filibustering - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Recommend Close and Open New AfD This conversation is impossible to follow at this point. It seems to be largely/completely off topic. PainProf (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And put a word count limit on Cunard - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd back that. It would at least stop him posting walls of qoutes. Which I'm sure we can all agree are completely uncessary since people can just read the linked sources to find the pertinent information. Adamant1 (talk) 18:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please focus on the quality of the sources proposed for this topic - discussion about an editor's AfD contribution practices should take place elsewhere.
 * Relist. I agree that starting this over woulld be the best thing to do at this point. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I Don't Know why this page is nominated, but as stated above in the list it does have sources which are highly reliable, for example The Economic Times (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/pramati-and-iiit-h-join-hands-to-foster-startups/articleshow/58462134.cms), Businessworld (http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/Pramati-Technologies-Making-Products-and-Delivering-Services-for-Building-the-Agile-Enterprise/07-06-2017-119614/), Business Line (https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/pramati-iiithyderabad-tie-up/article9677391.ece) are sufficient enough to show the notability criteria. Sv72 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. If somebody wants to fix this mess, the burden is on them. They wave their hands and say there's sources out there, somewhere, and then point to Business Times types of rah-rah stuff that prints any press release that;s sent in. Right now, there are two from the company's own sites, and two sources from the media. This is not a company traded on a stock exchange, so there is likely not a lot available. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, PR <b style="color:#77b">Devoke</b><b style="color:#fb0">water</b>  @  10:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Notability clearly exists, with sources independent of the topic. Leave targeted feedback for any quality issues. Ktin (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (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.