Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeroEdge
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- PrimeroEdge (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)
No evidence of notability. This is only one of very many software packages approved by USDA and there is no evidence it has any notability. Fails WP:GNG. I and Mean as custard have made this a redirect to its parent company, but a concerted effort by one editor(COI?) has necessitated this AfD. Velella Velella Talk 17:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- To the COI issue with the creator of the article; yes, this is a serious issue. The author has yet to respond, but has not been active since a notice was placed on their user talk page. Given their editing history, their sole interest on the project has been Cybersoft and its products. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Some of the new edits have added evidence of notability. The USDA approval is applicable to only one of the modules in an extensive suite that is unique and widely used.--Vkoripalli (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- leaning Delete the two RSes are better than nothing, but an article sourced to them would be two sentences - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Merge into Cybersoft. Ok, it exists and is in use by about 11% of school children in the U.S., but there's little in the way of independent coverage. We have 7 references in the article. The first is basically just a listing of approved packages. Not particularly revealing. The second is a press release from the company itself, thus a primary source, not what we really need. The third is virtually identical to the first. The fourth and fifth references are the same article from two different news outlets. I.e., it's really just one reference to a secondary source. Ok, that's one. The sixth isn't a secondary source; it's a customer. The seventh is, once again, a press release, thus a primary source. So in the shake out of all this we have.... ONE, reliable secondary source. That's precious little to support a stand alone article. Recommend to merge useful content back to Cybersoft and leave this as a redirect to same. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think it would be a good idea to merge into Cybersoft as I think that article is also suitable for deletion. This particualr program in any case has `no demonstrable notability DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the concerns here are clear, advertising intents and information and then also nothing for actual convincing notability; as is expected with these, the history shows noticeable SPAs focusing with this one article and these accounts consist of restoring then-removed advertising (therefore suggesting the uncompromising and unequivocal concerns especially in that this is being manipulated as an advertisement, and it's enough to also then say it's a company involving itself with schools, therefore it's not a school itself. As such, that also affects the sensibility of "merging" therefore it shows the concerns outweigh any generous considerations of keeping this, article or in history. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 18 October 2016 (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.