Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altaro

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. Lourdes 04:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Almost all of the coverage provided is either press releases, business award announcements. Business awards are often non-notable, and having won awards is not a criterion included in WP:NORG–it is however, included as an example of trivial coverage. I wasn't able to find anything better online. I do want to note that there is one source included that contains non-trivial coverage whose reliability I am uncertain of [1]. However, even if we do take it as an example of reliable, independent, significant coverage, it is the only such source that I have seen and thus still falls short of notability guidelines. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about this. I wonder if it just needs a couple of extra sources. So far I've been able to find this one, which is a press release but on the Maltese government website and seemingly independent of the country itself, as well as this one and this one and this one which are from national papers, although again I'm unsure of the reliability. They have articles across Google News in English, Dutch and German at least, from what I've been able to see. I think this is just a case of needing a re-write with better citations, which I'm willing to take on. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those additional sources add much. The first article provides the barest of information about Altaro's operations, the second one just says is that the subject won award, and includes quotes from the CEO for the rest of its content. 3 is a collection of paraphrasals and quotes from the CEO that doesn't contain independent analysis, and 4 is an interview with the cofounders that again contains no independent analysis. This doesn't seem to meet WP:ORGCRITE any more than what's attached to the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean. However, two is not really enough for a consensus on this. In the meantime, I'm going to try and improve the article and find some better resources, to see if it can meet WP:ORGCRITE standards. Hope that's okay. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• After deliberation, keep. Company has been featured in all three of the most prominent Maltese English-language newspapers: The Malta Independent, Malta Today and Times of Malta (see this list for the rest). Even though it may not be an internationally renowned company, I'd say coverage in the three national papers (and not insignificant coverage at that) is enough to warrant its importance to Malta. Its success outside of Malta is a bonus, IMO. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMarkBGregory: I guess you forgot to disclose paid editing here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I haven't been paid for this one. I always disclose paid edits, as you can see from my userpage. Besides, that's irrelevant to this discussion. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence that the company was looking for users to add keep !votes at this AfD and then your activities here at the same time are quite surprising. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there's nothing undisclosed about this. Yes, I have started taking on some paid edits because I'm trying to make it a little easier for my family and I to get by, but this is not one of them. As I've said before, and as you've already seen, I disclose my paid edits, even before I actually get paid. I'm also trying to become more involved in Wikipedia as a whole, when I get the chance. That includes trying to be an active and productive member of the Wikipedia community. I don't think my points were unreasonable, I try to make neutral and constructive edits wherever possible. and furthermore, this is a discussion; I can't save the page by myself, even if they were paying me. Maybe I shouldn't bother? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the creating editor, I wanted to leave my comments. After covering them while studying, I was amazed Altaro didn't have a Wikipedia article. So started the Wikipedia article as they are Malta's fastest growing software company. There are various publications that give them this title and anyone who researches the subject properly will find this. Significant coverage - The article currently references with sustained significant coverage in multiple very reliable sources including The Malta Independent, Malta Today and Times of Malta as mentioned by @MrMarkBGregory. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. On the other hand, I found someone has added the promotional stuff in the article that i will remove to improve the article. As editing can fix the issues.Goyalradhika (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As it stands, since the article is about the Company, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability and therefore a !vote should be to Delete. The references referred to above (the Malta references) fail WP:ORGIND as they are "Dependent coverage" based on company announcements or industry-award announcements with no indications of intellectual independence. But ... from a perusal of sources, I am of the opinion that there are sufficient references to support an article on the software (not the company) and should an article be written focussing on the software, then information on the company (currently contained in the current article) could be summarized as a section in the new article. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO fail. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:NCORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:01, 10 January 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.