Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADERANT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 A Traintake the 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADERANT

ADERANT (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested A7 deletion Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - No assertion of notability. I agree with Betacommands original deletion. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no non-trivial secondary sources, reads as a press release. Did Kohs write this? Guy (Help!) 19:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No reliable sources shown to make it notable Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above and below. Leuko 20:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lots of sources, but they're almost all press releases. The rest are links from the ADERANT site. The Alexa rating doesn't help its case for notability. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable company that has been existence for over 25 years. Several references from non-trivial third party publications. —SparklingWiggleGet a job! 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per SparklingWiggle Orel Secs 20:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Orel Secs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep per above. Swgg 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC) — Swgg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep multiple references. —M (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Malber, which ones do you identify as independent sources rather than simply press releases? Thanks, Guy (Help!) 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Disclosure: I created the article. If you are a large law firm anywhere in the world, you have only two choices for your time, billing, and accounting system: ADERANT's CMS or Thomson's Elite. --Nélson Ricardo 20:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Seems like a company-generated page for their own hype. Can anyone see any credible sources outside of their own press releases? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - References are company press releases. - PoliticalJunkie 21:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless independent and non-trivial sources can be found to demonstrate that this company meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria. The sources provided so far do not meet those standards. Rossami (talk) 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to user space, then let editor see about developing the subject area of legal software. That is, if indeed there are only two choices practical for large legal firms, there must be some intriguing differences in this area from 'plain' accounting software. I don't know if an article specific to office needs relating to Practice of law is "too specific", but it would be one way to make this relevant. As it is, this does look entirely too much as advertising, giving information about the firm, but not about any subject area helpful to the encyclopedia. Shenme 22:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems prominent enough to warrant an article. If there are problems with the tone of the article, AfD is not the place to deal with it - see Wikipedia:Cleanup instead. Bryan Derksen 00:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless referenced -- press releases don't count. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment/Keep: A Google news archive search (that took me about 10 whole seconds) yields 85 results. I haven't checked all of them (I've done my 10 seconds of hard, source-finding work for today :)), but I'm sure that at least a handful of useable sources can be found in there. --Conti|✉ 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for running the search. I've reviewed either the text or the abstract of all 85. All except six were press releases. Three of the hits on page 7 were nonsense hits. (Here's an example quote: "the poor man who needs money to iret It at aderant rate".) The other three were general business articles that used this company as a passing example or that interviewed a VP of the company. None in that search pass the independence requirement for sources. (There were a couple of deadlinks in the list, too.) Sorry, no change of opinion. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete article is too advert-like and its not our job to clean this up. Not impressed with the Google News archive hits which appear to be press-release announcements (I didn't check them all either since again, for something like this, solid sourcing is the article author's job, not ours). Article was borderline speedyable (i.e. careful review of the cited sources might lead to a conclusion of speedy) but I do have concerns that such review didn't take place, therefore the self-reversal at DRV and bringing it here was correct. 64.160.39.153 01:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to Aderant if kept (no opinion on the article being kept/deleted). Ral315 » 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The company seems to take pains to point out that their name is in all-caps. - David Oberst 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Spell it the normal way anyway, per WP:MOS-TM. 64.160.39.153 07:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure of the intent of WP:MOS-TM - most of the references are to trademarks, while this is the name of the company, and is probably closer to the "MCI" example given, or BASF. - David Oberst 07:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • MCI and BASF are acronyms. See the REALTOR example in MOS-TM. 64.160.39.153 08:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • As the article points out, while BASF's name originated as an abbreviation, it is now simply a 4 letter name, consistently spelled in all-caps. The "REALTOR" example is not really applicable, as it refers to non-standard typography of arbitrary words used as product trademarks or for effect, promotional purposes, etc., not a company name. See also many other examples off all-cap names on Wikipedia, including MBNA, RAND, REO Motor Car Company, SPAR, etc. - David Oberst 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • All of which are acronyms, and therefore should be capitalised. Aderant is a "stylized typography". We capitalise things because they're acronyms, not because some company's marketing department tells us to. Chris cheese whine 00:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, read BASF, while historically an acronym, is now simply the name of the company. If they had decided for some reason to go with, say, MASF, would their article suddenly be forced to Masf? REO happened to be the initials of Ransom E. Olds, but it was never the Ransom E Olds Company, simply REO as a "word". "RAND" is similar. Should THX Ltd. be forced to Thx Ltd? If the ADERANT people came up with some bogus story about how the name was actually an acronym, would that somehow require a change to all-caps? There is NOVA Chemicals (and I'm sure others), which seem to have no historical abbreviation roots at all, although it shouldn't matter in any case. I have no problem squashing arbitrary typography of common words or product names sprinkled in an article, but if a company name is commonly capitalized, then that should be reflected, abbreviation or not. I would also note that that things like "iPod" is also a stylized typography, and Wikipedia goes to some trouble in apologizing for not reproducing it properly. - David Oberst 05:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, without prejudice. I would second the suggestion that the creator take it to user space and work on finding additional information, establish notability, and remove some of the undue excess (the complete exec list, etc). As mentioned, it is mostly a (good-faith) rehash of information available from press releases and the company site. A quick Google doesn't seem to indicate any obvious sources of further information - as a private company there seems to be nothing on revenues, sales, etc. that could serve to indicate size, or anything compellingly indicating that lawfirm accounting software necessarily requires an entry. - David Oberst 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Additional comment - my delete vote was mainly due to lack of indepedent information to create a useful article. In theory I have no real objection to an entry for the company - it will be up to the closing admin to compare with other private companies with similarly limited coverage. - David Oberst 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think David Oberst raises a good point that the WP:N guideline creates a systemic bias against private companies. Public companies generate lots of press coverage due to their public filings and access to media covering the securities industry. Private companies do not get the same type of media coverage, even if they are of equal size and economic importance. Dhaluza 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That is a recognized condition that has been discussed several times at WP:CORP, the Village Pump and a number of other places. Each time we discuss it, we again realize that can not become Wikipedia's job to solve that particular problem. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize what others have already written about. When reputable, independent sources correct their bias and begin to cover private companies in the same depth that they cover public companies, we will be able to follow and synopsize those writings. Until then, we must not compromise our existing standards of independence and verifiability. Rossami (talk)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, reads like advertising copy rather than an encyclopedia article. --MediaMangler 08:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, I would also review all company listings in the company stubs as many many are similar to Aderant. Aderant are not unique. - Les.Malt 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • NOTE: I have added several references, including Microsoft. Google shows 1,650 hits for "aderant site:microsoft.com". Microsoft itsellf links to ADERANT at http://www.microsoft.com/office/bi/bpm/partners.mspx and other pages. I've also added links to the Google Finance and Hoover's profiles of ADERANT. These sources don't profile mom-and-pop shops, ya know! Most of the votes above were entered before these changes and should be reconsidered. Thank you. --Nélson Ricardo 10:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How does the microsoft page you quoted make them notable? Its basically an advert for the company that microsoft endorses, doesn't meet WP:RS Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, yeah. I forgot. Microsoft is in the habit of partnering with and endorsing rinky-dink non-notable companies. Silly me. --Nélson Ricardo 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • That doesn't matter, it's not a reliable source Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, yes. Microsoft will partner with practically anyone. And while I fully support their business reasons for doing so, the fact of partnering has no real bearing on the appropriateness of a company for an encyclopedia article. It also provides no verifiable source of any information actually needed to write a neutral, verifiable article on the subject. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Took me approx. 1 minute of Googling "ADERANT news" to find ([1]) and other similar stories. Notable. But please continue to improve the article - including some references from third party reliable sources. --Dweller 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Again, that's for 19 for 19 press releases. None in that list qualify as independent sources. Rossami (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I presume that's a response to Nélson Ricardo, rather than me? --Dweller 13:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that was an analysis of the 19 abstracts that came up when I followed your LawTechNews link. I haven't had time to properly evaluate Nelson's sources yet. Rossami (talk)
          • Why would you say those are press releases? Just because LTN uses information from press releases in it articles does not change the fact that LTN's editors thought of ADERANT as notable enough to be mentioned numerous times in its publication. LTN is published by the highly respected and widely circulated American Lawyer Media. --Nélson Ricardo 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Cmon, they're notable. ([2]), ([3]) and ([4]) and I'm not even really trying. --Dweller 13:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Sorry, but those are also press releases - and actually, they're reprints of press releases that were already in the other lists above. I'm willing to be convinced but not by these self-published sources. Rossami (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Press releases are not reliable citations for an article. Copies or slight rewordings of said press releases are not acceptable articles. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure I agree that the piece from The Age is a press release. --Dweller 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                • OK, so we have 19 press releases that have been picked up and republished. I understand that we generally exclude these, but at what point are we standing on ceremony by claiming that an obviously large and important company only has press coverage in the form of press releases? Come on, that's how the business press works these days. There are no beat reporters out doing stories on privately held companies. If this company can't pass WP:CORP, maybe we should be considering deleting that guideline instead. Dhaluza 20:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • If you value the bathwater over the baby, go ahead. The operative phrase in all of this is "press releases". There's the problem right there. Chris cheese whine 22:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • Companies generate lots of press releases, so they are rightly devalued. But reputable publishers do not reprint every press release they receive, so when a press release is re-published, it adds value. When they are consistently picked up, this is circumstantial evidence of notability. Not sufficient on its own, but better than used bathwater. The point is to use common sense here--the company is obviously not trivial. We need to apply guidelines judiciously. Dhaluza 09:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep ... but place on parole. Other than the lack of an assertion of notability, it's basically well-written and cited for a start-class article. All it needs is notability information and further editing to make it sound less like an ad. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If theres no sources to show notability, we don't keep it. Having good internal citations proves nothing about its notability for inclusion Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 09:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The microsoft posts and the users list seem sufficient to establish N, but we do need some more references. I just mention we'd keep a school article in with one-fifth the amount of information, and there is no reason the standards for that sort of organization shouldn't apply here as well. Business firms are as important in the lives of the community as elementary schools, DGG 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely notable if Google is any indication. There are many reliable news sources, pointed out above. Reading like an ad is not a reason for deletion, and should be tagged for cleanup instead. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I object wholesale to any recommendation to "Keep and cleanup" on AfD for two reasons. (1) Cleanup is backlogged to the tune of two years (2) You're essentially saying "This article isn't fit for Wikipedia, but let's keep it anyway". Chris cheese whine 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • How do you figure the backlog. The article was never tagged for cleanup, as I recall. --Nélson Ricardo 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Category:Cleanup by month has dated examples all the way back to September 2005. Many of the dates are added by bots, which add the date they do the dating, not the date the tag is actually added, so some examples are likely to be older still. Chris cheese whine 11:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I don't think ADERANT was ever tagged as such. (Maybe I missed it in the history). I'll look at it tonight after I return from work where I will have taken out my wikifrustration on my employees and coworkers. --Nélson Ricardo 11:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Userfy. Not in a fit state for article space, no assertion of notability, no sources provided in the article. Chris cheese whine 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Userfy? What dictionary is that from? --Nélson Ricardo 10:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It means put it into your userspace until the article meets current guidlines Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I know what it means. Thanks. I just prefer to speak English is all. --Nélson Ricardo 10:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
          • If you know what it means, then shut up. Chris cheese whine 11:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I beg your pardon, sir! Shut up seems rather uncivil, does it not? --Nélson Ricardo 11:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
              • WP:KETTLE. Chris cheese whine 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
                • I never I said I wasn't, but that does not preclude me from pointing out the faults of others, despite that little piece that has no place in the Wikipedia namespace. --Nélson Ricardo 11:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable, including "Google search results" in article shows reaching for notability. Intro also appears to read like an advertisement or written by someone from within the company. MECU≈talk 12:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment ([5]) appears to be a non press release source. --Dweller 14:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • MYOB is a related entity. They merged with the Australian arm of Solution 6. (Aderant was created the same year by purchasing the US arm of Solution 6.) This article is a press release from MYOB and traces back to their Q1 2005 analysts' call. As a related entity, I don't think that this passes the independence requirement. It is also arguable that this particular reference only mentions Aderant in passing - it confirms the existence of the company but is primarily about MYOB. Rossami (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as presently rewritten, the numerous third party references indicate that this is a notable company. Burntsauce 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please clarify what third-party references you found? All the ones discussed so far have been traced back to press releases either by the company or by a related entity. That makes them first-party references (or in a few cases, second-party references). Thanks. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep Hoovers at least guarantees the reliability of the basic information and the names of the prominent users. LTR news items may derive from the company but such professional newsletters do not include disreputable companies, or nobody would read them. Francesco Partners is a leading technology investment group. All that is necessary is the comparative market share report by Law Firm Inc. As it is apparently not avail. directly, perhaps a direct quote can be given. I really do not see what else is wanted. If they had taken a reporter for a newspaper to lunch and he had written an article about them, what would it have added? I might want to see their audited balance sheet if i were investing in them, but our standard is not quite that. We can assume that reputable trade publications do not publish unjustified press releases; I consider them RSs in real life, and I do here. (Now, if there were any actual challenges to the veracity, that might require more of a demonstration.) For the commercial world, its enough DGG 07:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Nobody said they were disreputable. What was said was that we apparently lack the independently verifiable sources on which to base a current article. Press releases, even if republished in many newspapers, remain an inherent conflict of interest. Press releases are routinely published without verification in the business sections of newspapers. Articles written by reporters employed by the newspaper, however, are fact-checked and reviewed by other staff before publication and are given greater weight because the newspaper has put their reputation behind the accuracy of the report when they authorize the byline. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep how is a multi-national company not notable? Also since Thomson Corporation is apparently unchallenged for notability, and ADERANT is it's major competitor, WP:NPOV would suggest it should be included as well for balance. I think this is a case of anti-commercial bias creating an unrealistic standard for inclusion of company articles. I am by no means an inclusionist who would want to see articles about every sole-proprietorship, but obviously this company's products are well known in it's industry, so the subject is inherently notable, and better references probably exist. Dhaluza 11:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • After doing additional research, adding references to the article, and trimming the content, I strongly believe that deletion is not appropriate at this time. Deletion is an extreme remedy for the objections raised here, as the references given are now sufficient to support the content. Dhaluza 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I found this independent secondary source reference which addresses the subject directly and places it in context. Because it supports a claim of notability, I added it to the article. Since this article is no longer an A7 candidate the nomination is no longer valid, particularly since it is only a procedural nomination. Therefore this discussion should be closed. Dhaluza 00:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Contested A7 deletion simply means that the speedy deletion has been questioned, so Afd is the answer, no need to close Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The premise of the discussion is that the article is an A7 candidate, since it is not, much of the discussion is now moot. Dhaluza 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, not. A7 is no assertion of notability. Since various editors (and/or socks) have asserted notability, the discussion now revolves around whether the notability criteria of WP:CORP are met or not. Leuko 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Exactly, the discussion has forked--therefore no valid consensus can result from this process (e.g. see the first few comments below). Dhaluza 00:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
            • The discussion has evolved. A valid consensus can still be reached. Leuko 00:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
            • This discussion has not forked because it was never about speedy-deletion criterion A7 - that decision was answered when the speedy-deletion was overturned. This discussion has always been about whether there are sufficient sources to meet the criteria of WP:CORP - a significantly higher standard which requires research and discussion and is therefore inappropriate for the speedy-deletion process.
              Having read the almevents.com link you provided above, I remain unconvinced. That page contains a passing mention to ADERANT but is not primarily about the company. It confirms only that ADERANT has a blackberry interface. I also challenge the independence of that source since the almevents.com site files it under "advertisers" and every paragraph in that page includes a sales contact. Advertising materials, like press releases, do not constitute independent sources. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
              • The nomination only mentions A7, so that is what the discussion should be about. If it was about WP:CORP and whether the references given were good enough, then the page should have been tagged {{notability}} first. If your assertion is correct, then taking a short cut by going from Speedy-A7 directly to AfD without giving editors notice and time to do additional research sets a bad precedent, and is only further evidence that this process is fatally flawed and should be stopped now. I have no procedural objection to closing this without prejudice, tagging it {{notability}} and after a reasonable period of time, if an editor still thinks it should be deleted, renominating it making a cogent argument for deletion. Dhaluza 10:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Regarding the In Brief article by Karen Jones, I disagree with your analysis. Almvents.com was the sponsor of the trade show, and hosted a reprint of the magazine article because it was about the trade show. ADERANT was an exhibitor, and therefore an advertiser of the trade show. Karen Jones was publisher of In Brief magazine, which covered the legal industry and is independent of both. It only published between 2000-2005 and is now defunct, so any additional content they may have had on ADERANT is no longer available online. I also disagree with your devaluing of the article content because it was not exclusively about the subject. An article covering several related subjects is even more valuable than a feature article primarily about the company because it gives context. Feature articles can be bought and paid for, either by buying advertising, taking a reporter to dinner, or passing money under the table. Because this article discusses both this company, and its major competitor, along with related companies, we can judge relative importance, which is really the basis of notability. Because the author did not list all the exhibitors, and only focused on a hand-full of them, this is tangible secondary source evidence of notability. And it does not just talk about the Blackberry. The money quote is the one added to the article: “Aderant...have developed real time reporting and analysis that is becoming essential to profitability in law firms.” Dhaluza 10:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
                • "The nomination only mentions A7, so that is what the discussion should be about." Wikilawyer much? Chris cheese whine 00:47, 26 March 2007 (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.