Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo (software) (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: 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 redirect to Atlassian. There is consensus that references do not satisfy our requirements for companies and should not be a standalone article. A redirect to Atlassian is a valid alternative to deletion, however. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

Bamboo (software) (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)

Typical Corporate Brochure. Wiki is not White paper. No need for separate article for this product. Atlassian company page already exists to cover this. Light2021 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, are you reading those press articles yourself? Problem with this article is - it does not require separate page when the company page already exist. Wikipedia is not a Press, not a blog and definitely not a white paper or brochure for the companies. All articles are motivated by Press/ Digital marketing team. Secondly you can just mention the weblink and all people can ready them. you cover entire discussion with COPY+PASTE from the article and take the full discussion space. Thank you.

Do you call this notability of press? "Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately". Light2021 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guess from this and other AfDs Cunard has been involved in is that the answer to your first question is a hard, resounding no. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly a promo article that lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to be notable. I'm not seeing anything that would warrant not deleting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Your convoluting something being written neutrally for it being written promotionally. They are two separate things, that are treated differently in Wikipedia, and I never said anything about the articles neutrality. I said it was promotional. That's it. It has nothing to do with neutrality. Also, something can be factually correct but still be an advertisement. They aren't mutually exclusive and again Wikipedia treats them differently. You mixing those things up, intentionally or not, and ref-bombing more trivial sources really isn't helpful to this in the slightest. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:Spam guideline says, "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I reviewed the article and consider it largely not to be using "sales-oriented language". I can remove any "sales-oriented language" that editors find.

Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again your miss qouting me.o one except you has said anything about the article being spam. Spam and promotion are completely different and having noyhing to do with each other. Neither does "sales-oriented language." Which again, your the only one talking about. Stop bringing up things that aren't relevant to the AfD, discussion, and no one is saying anything about. Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That there are reliable sources is not enough. The sources must provide significant coverage. For example, the book chapter cited spends one short paragraph describing Bamboo before launching into a tutorial for how to set it up. This is not enough material to write an article with. Fails
    WP:GNG. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:17, 15 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bamboo_(software)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1166227578"