Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tsuru (PaaS)


 * 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. Argument son both sides, but end result is a reasonable consensus that this article does not meet notability standards. There's weight behind ' point that the sources are largely self-references. The UK Govt blog post is a reliable source, but its Tsuru coverage is a bit thin to justify a Wikipedia page.

Also somewhat discounted Magnotorres' !vote on the grounds of their declared COI. They mention that their competitors have equally non-notable articles: if they flagged which these were they should perhaps be AfD'ed as well, but either way, "other stuff exists" is insufficient as a keep rationale. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Tsuru (PaaS)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I deleted this in January after an expired PROD, and the creator (, who is an employee of the company) has come to my userpage requesting restoration. Prior to this, the article had been speedy deleted under A7 in 2014 for lack of notability (the page creator at that time was also an employee). It was subsequently recreated by Magnotorres in Dec 2015. I agreed to restore the article for a full AfD to settle the issue of notability. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep Has received some media attention.  Also discussed in a book published by a reputable publisher: . SJK (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Pretty much self-references. Wired coverage is in passing, two paragraphs. InfoWorld article seems good, but the book treatment is another short paragraph. Borderline, but I think we need to be tougher on those kind of entries, we are not software directory. The IW article is a good start, but I think we need at least one more in-depth treatment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tsuru is at full blast with more than, full opensource and it is a software that serves the community. We are working to improve marketing/notability and we expect to have a great result this year Magnotorres (talk) :25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you are admitting a conflict of interest, thanks for being honest. Alas, Wikipedia is not the place for your marketing, nor should we promote your product until it becomes notable.  Just using a citation template does not make it an independent source to justify notability. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Just to be clear, I really believe we have notability enough to be at Wikipedia. What I'm saying is, we are improving it to not have even that kind of doubt as "notability" is very a subjective term. The intention is not use Wikipedia for marketing, but to inform about tsuru. The same thing has been done by ours direct competitors, would be unfair to be treated different Magnotorres (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to be promotion for a non notable software product. My opinion when proposing deletion still stands: sourcing fails to meet WP:GNG notability standard, validated by Piotrus's deeper look in his !vote. Bri (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC).
 * I don't think is fair to use a judgment for other person just to reinforce you view, would be better to have your own evaluation. The stars in the github are great and fair way to judge notability, because don't matter if you invest lots of money into publicity, people only give stars for projects that matters for them Magnotorres (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree the topic is borderline, but clearly the article has a history of conflict of interest editing and right now is quite more a marketing page than an encyclopedic article. I would lean to delete or at best merge into Grupo Globo which apparently is the company? The company article also needs to be rewritten into cited prose instead of uncited bullets, but would have a much better case for being notable. It would help if someone who speaks Portuguese would contribute, since coverage outside of North America and Britain could be improved. Would also need to know the rules of Wikipedia style, and making it into a link farm will not do it. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Can you be clear why you think it has a conflict of interest? Merge with Grupo Globo is not a good way to procede, because the subjects are totally different. Magnotorres (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COI. Editing about subjects you are personally involved in–such as your own employer–is discouraged. From what you say, you sound like you work for Globo. If that is true, then many would say it would be better if you didn't edit the article, because there is a concern your edits might be biased in favour of your employer. You naturally have loyalty towards your employer, and your employer expects loyalty from you, but that loyalty generally limits your ability to be honest about them in public–it is hard for you to be honest about their weaknesses, and even their strengths you may have a natural tendency to overstate–if you were to be completely honest about both here, you might get yourself in trouble at work. And this is a concern about the article at present–you wrote most of it, and what you have written sounds too much like marketing material–e.g. focusing on the strength of the project and passing over potential weaknesses. Independent authors are more likely to be even-handed–to cover both the positives and the negatives equally–while employees will play up the positives and downplay the negatives–it is what their employer expects of them, but it is not what Wikipedia wants. I myself lean towards the idea an article should exist on Tsuru (although it is borderline), but if the article is kept it needs to be rewritten to sound less like a marketing brochure and more like an independent review. SJK (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I totally get your point. I tried to make it neutral, including the competitors, the reference from UK government, but I agree, even I working in a company that deals ethically in this kind of situation, would be way better to have people outside Globo doing it. Magnotorres (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This blog post compares Tsuru to Cloud Foundry and Apcera and explains why the UK government chose Cloud Foundry over Tsuru and Apcera. Yes it is a blog post, but it is an official UK government blog, so I think that means it contributes more to notability than the average blog post does. SJK (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (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.