Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonatype (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. ✗ plicit  13:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sonatype
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable organization that fails to meet WP:ORG, needless to say, have no WP:ORGDEPTH. The organization lacks significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Their are 5 sources used in the article, 4 of them are press release. A before search turns out nothing cogent Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - this shouldn't have been recreated - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @, Exactly, I was thinking of applying a G4, but I just figured to use AFD instead. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Bit of background on why this happened if anyone's curious ... I resurrected the post because I did a bunch of research around companies like it, including Whitesource. I also ran some edits on that page and it's also now somehow also up for deletion. I guess my edits/posts got flagged, which is fine. You might be able to tell from my edit history that I had an open weekend and got a little ambitious.

Anyway, having done moderation work on a public Wiki a long time ago, I'm sensitive to the fact that folks are always trying to throw up junk on the site. I have tried to address some of the concerns -- in particular removal of the primary-source press releases. I would point out the open source index is a freely available public service and the O'Reilly book do fall under the requirements of the "notability" requirements page. That page specifically mentions the "Dummies guide," reference, though I don't think the O'Reilly book was produced wholly independently of the company.

While I maintain that there's some potentially useful data here, I could be wrong. I actually intended to do more of a stub post and then come back down the road with some better info, but maybe the post should get deleted until that happens. I can backup what I've got now and then re-post if and when that gets to a reasonable size and quality level. That's fine too. Sandmanwaves (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete While Sandmanwaves' efforts should be applauded, I can't see how this passes WP:NCORP.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:25, 25 July 2021 (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.