Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avature

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avature

[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)

I cannot find coverage that demonstrates that WP:CORP is met. Note that I have removed various sources noting awards but all of them where from the same organisation giving the award i.e. not independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. SmartSE (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information that is left in the article seems to be found on their company website, which makes sense for that kind of basic information.

Regarding coverage to demonstrate WP:CORP I found several independent articles that mention Avature as an HR tech company (see references below). Avature is a well-established company and their article page goes back to 2012. Based on the above and the WP:ORGCRIT provided, we should keep this page.

1. This year, an industry expert mentions Avature released a new product that debuts them in the training market: https://joshbersin.com/2023/10/avature-enters-training-market-with-focus-on-informal-learning/

2. An announcement that mentions a partnership between Avature and LinkedIn: https://www.hrtech.sg/news/avature-integrates-with-linkedin-recruiter/

3. Dimitri Boylan, the CEO mentioned in the article, was named in the best HR tech influencer list: https://talentculture.com/top-20-best-hr-tech-influencers-of-2022/

4. In 2020 the same industry expert Josh Bersin, mentioned Avature as being adaptable HR Tech software: https://joshbersin.com/2020/10/the-new-world-of-adaptable-hr-software-avature-sets-the-pace/

5. This mention technically fails CORPDEPTH, but it mentions Avature as an HR technology vendor of Delta and Walmart: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/technology/pages/delta-walmart-use-hr-technology-stay-agile-during-pandemic.aspx TechieArg (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)— TechieArg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:NORG. To the points above, being "well-established" isn't what shows notability on Wikipedia. As for the sources: (1) is a niche WordPress blog that, when taking WP:AUD into consideration, isn't sufficient for notability whether this person's blog is reliable or not. (2) is a press release, and so is not independent and does not contribute to notability. (3) is also a press release but notability is not inherited, so if the article showed notability for the individual, that notability does not transfer to any and every company they work for. However, even if it's wasn't a press release, such lists are specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage. (4) is the same niche WordPress blog as 1. (5) is indeed trivial coverage. I wasn't able to find anything online that would show notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 22 November 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.