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. Those that supported deleting the article backed up their positions with relevant policies/guidelines while those supported keeping the article did not. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LLamasoft[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A highly promotional article on a small company. Almost all the references are mere notices about funding, and do not meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable as has an international presence, also had an $80 million revenue in 2017. Uses sufficient sources to back up everything written. May need re writing in some areas as it does have a somewhat promotional tone (maybe in the ‘Awards and recognition’ section). WP:NCORP is not grounds to delete in this situation, although does need work. Willbb234 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a standard that $80 M makes a company notable? DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I’m allowed an opinion. Willbb234 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only have this page watchlisted because of Jeff Minter, and have no real interest in supply-chain networks (I had to follow the link to see what it was,) but it seems a notable article to me? I clicked a few references to see how they panned out and the ones I chose weren't about funding, or rather only in the same way that any article about a business would mention financial prospects. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think LLamasoft is not small, it seems a notable article to me.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom - none of the references are independent. Most are based on company announcements or business-as-usual reporting and fails the criteria independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is surely more of the undisclosed paid editing for which the article creator was blocked. Coverage appears to be poorly sourced, local only, and of routine activities such as fund-raising typical of any business start-up; the "awards" are completely trivial, the usual trade magazine you-pat-my-back-and-I'll-pat-yours. WP:NCORP appears not to be met. To those who think the article should be kept (Willbb234, Chaheel Riens, SebastianQuilo): how many sources have you identified that are (1) significant? (2) independent? (3) reliable? and (4) secondary?. Would you care to compile a table similar to that shown here so that others can evaluate them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please compile a list of the sources you believe fail in your criteria? That would be helpful, thanks. As I said above, I'm not especially interested in either the topic or the article subject, but a cursory glance seems to suggest that it's notable. Therefore if you believe otherwise you should try to prove it to the rest of us by pointing out the failings, rather than ask others to do the opposite. The article already exists, the emphasis is on those who wish it otherwise.

That's also a pretty harsh accusation of paid editing, to who are you exactly aiming it at? I've edited the article, from your vague broadside are you accusing me of paid editing, and a COI? Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaheel Riens, I must apologise – I had thought that when I wrote "the undisclosed paid editing for which the article creator was blocked", it would be clear that I was talking about undisclosed paid editing by the creator of the article. But apparently not – sorry about that! This page is not among those listed here, but I see little or no room for doubt about this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chaheel Riens requested above to "compile a list of the sources you believe fail in your criteria". The guidelines are in WP:NCORP, especially the sections WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The latter explains both facets of "independent" sources - both independence of the author and equally important, independence of the content. Of particular note is the following: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. There are also examples provided on "dependent coverage" such as press releases or material that is substantially based on such.

Onto the sources in the article themselves. There are 33 references. The following are based on press releases or company announcements and therefore fail ORGIND: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 31. References 2 and 31 are Primary sources. Reference 21 is based on a "success story" and information from company execs and customers and fails ORGIND. References 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 33 are mere mentions in a list with no information on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Reference 32 doesn't exist and appears to be a URL searching for the term "Llamasoft" on the website. Reference 1 is a description containing information provided by the company and fails ORGIND. That leaves reference 1 which in my opinion is good and meets the criteria for establishing notability. There are other good references on the scdigest.com website also but we need a minimum of two references from different publishers in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability. For example, have any analysts such as Gartner written an analysis on the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.