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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LakeFS[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)

Non-notable software, with only venture capital funding PR pieces used for sourcing. Nothing else found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an open-source software, not commercial, that is widely used in ML/AI applications. As a regular user of this software, I noticed that there was no article about this topic, so I started one. I was unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, so I wrote something that is certainly unacceptable. I am trying to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and intend to improve it so that it reads as an objective article. There are multiple in-depth references about this topic in academia, most of which are available on Google Scholar (Link). Anah509 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. In addition to the books links above (I didn't check them), I found more media coverage articles that are quite easily found in English:

This is an Israeli company and the sources are from Israeli well-established media press. I also saw sources in media in Hebrew but I couldn't assess them properly as I don't know the language. However, even these sources should be sufficient for the article's improvement.--Onetimememorial (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can use cleanup, but definitely not commercial. According to WP:JUSTASTUB, just because the article is a stub does not mean it should be deleted. Nanosci (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nanosci. Meets WP:GNG. Additional sources found: coverage in books ([1], [2], [3]) in newspapers/magazines ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). 2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from some editors with experience with AFD discussions and source evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable based on the sources listed above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. After blowing away the chaff I don't think we have quite enough to work with here. Policy-based rationale follows.
First, the rules: WP:PRODUCT states that A product or service is appropriate for its own Wikipedia article when it has received sustained coverage in reliable secondary sources. In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. WP:CORPDEPTH provides that significant coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. WP:COMMERCIAL reminds us why we have these rules: Some commercial organizations meet Wikipedia notability guidelines but care must be taken in determining whether they are truly notable and whether the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Putting this in my own words, I'd say what we need is sufficient sourcing to provide coverage that is robust against promotional abuse.
Next, the sources. There are a lot of misleading search hits for this term. In addition to the predictable scannos, a non-commercial file system by the same name was announced to the world in a 2008 paper by a Korean team (which had some initial scholarly followup but seems to have fizzled). But that seems to be unrelated to the 2020 Treeverse project that is the subject of this article. After blowing off the chaff, I am left with two sets of sources: the coverage of Treeverse's VC funding in the commercial press (representatively linked by others above), and nontrivial coverage in a couple of recent O'Reilly Media software books, e.g. extensive in-depth discussion in this Kubernetes book (some outside preview), bulleted para of about 40 words here. The Treeverse VC funding articles often also have quite a bit about LakeFS, but in context that information seems unlikely to represent independent reporting.
This is a tough one IMO. LakeFS is definitely a real thing that people are using and talking about, and the company has gotten some legitimate coverage of its own. But I don't think we have enough on the company to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, or enough sustained in-depth coverage of the product to meet WP:PRODUCT. Nor am I really convinced that we have the kind of robust sourcing necessary to avoid promotional abuse. Ideally I'd like to follow the example of the second O'Reilly book and merge this into some bulleted list of data lake management software, but I'm not seeing any viable currently-existing merge targets. -- Visviva (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do count independent hebrew sources (news portals, newspapers) as RS. It is not compulsory for the sources to be in English for notability. Okoslavia (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (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.