Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basware

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basware

[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)

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Finland. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:41, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have ample coverage in Finnish. For example here is an Aamulehti article about the company's restructuring. On the English side of things, here is a book on back-office automation from a reputable publisher that provides nontrivial coverage of various Basware products. These sources and others seem ample to meet WP:CORPDEPTH's expectation that sources will make[] it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.-- Visviva (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Visviva's good work. We need reliable articles about mid-sized companies like this.
A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single reference isn't ample coverage. That is you mistaking PR and paid coverage for valid coverage that doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS. The Finnish source comes from an interview and a press-release and the book while admittedly a secondary source is content that comes directly from the company website and is not that independent. scope_creep^Talk 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the limited preview to the Aamulehti piece, I'd be inclined to agree with Scope_creep, or at least discount it heavily. With the first sentence starting with Basware says it will.., it has all the hallmarks of a journalist taking a press release and rephrasing it.
I've tried to look for better sourcing in Finnish language newspapers, but it's a pretty rough going. There's tons of hits, but almost all of it is things like this where the company is mentioned briefly, or things like this which are obviously based solely on a company press release.
I didn't look at every hit, but the ones that struck out as different are these two news stories (both paywalled, unfortunately), which are 408 and 456 words about an information security problem in a Basware product and a whistleblower coming out with details about the problem. The pieces involve commentary by entities like FICORA's National Cyber Security Center and Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority .
I don't feel quite comfortable enough with WP:NCORP to straight-up !vote here, but I think this is borderline at best. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I translated a whole bunch of Finish articles that mentioned the company as part of the WP:BEFORE, and there was nothing of depth. There is a big PR and corporate social media presence because it is a software company. It needs to do that to survive, but there is little outside that domain. scope_creep^Talk 07:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I guess I'll mark myself down as a weak delete for now: if the two Helsingin Sanomat pieces about a single infosec issue are the best there is, it's not a lot. Ljleppan (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but I'm not seeing a consensus here. Perhaps another week will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references:

Ref 1 [1] Company site. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
Ref 2 [2] Annual report. Fails WP:SIRS Non-rs.
Ref 3 [3] Paywalled. Basware makes a profit every year.
Ref 4 404'd
Ref 5 404'd
Ref 6 404'd
Ref 7 404'd
Ref 8 Paywalled. The trans-title tag states "Basware made acquisitions in Germany worth more than 12 million euros" That is routine coverage, covered by WP:CORPDEPTH. It fails that policy.
Ref 9 404'd
Ref 10 [4] Press-release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 11 [5] States its a press-release Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 12 [6] Basware tribunal Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS

I don't have any faith that the first paywalled reference in any good when compared to the quality of the other references. It currently an advert and fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 10:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 4-7 and 9 are all from the company's own website. Tivi, the publication of ref #8 is at best a mixed bag (to the point that while I have access to almost every newspaper in Finland through work, we don't seem to have bothered to subscribe to it), and absent evidence to the contrary I'd presume the story it fails CORPDEPTH. Ljleppan (talk) 10:42, 17 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.