Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOPYX Social LMS
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TOPYX Social LMS (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)
Just another LMS that is not very notable by Wikipedia's standards. RBrideau (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBIZ rationales. Profiles and awards don't help with establishing notability, and I couldn't find any reliable source discussing the subject in more or less acceptable depth. As of now, the article fails to differentiate the subject from other similar subjects, and the sources don't allow to add any encyclopedic coverage to the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards can be the only claim to notability, depending on the award. --Nouniquenames 06:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure awards can be the only claim to notability, but they don't aid in passing WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, awards can be the only claim to notability, depending on the award. --Nouniquenames 06:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N. Article satisfies notability requirements and all content provided is verifiable per WP:V. WP:MILL & WP:NBIZ are essays. Per Wikipedia, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." WP:MILL should not be cited without proof or substantial supporting information. I have directly edited this article in the past. Claims originally made differentiating this article from others were denied due to 'Advertisement' rationals which is why such an effort was made to source every statement made as to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and integrity as best as possible. Any suggestions that do not conflict with Wikipedia guidelines that would make this article 'better' would be taken under consideration. — 108.219.250.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- Essays are rationales, and both are perfectly valid and policy-based here. Wikilawyering is particularly not helpful here, as per WP:N if the subject is not excluded per WP:NOT (and it is, as one may see from WP:MILL), and it was covered in non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of topic (no single source of a kind) it is "presumed" to be worth inclusion, though WP:NBIZ rationale rebuts this presumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Using your own Wikipedia essay to substantiate your own opinion should not be considered part of this discussion. There have been no examples or detailed information provided to validate the WP:MILL claims. My opinion is that this does not apply as no other Wikipedia articles exist that are similar. None. By definition, this would exclude WP:MILL rationales and your basis for WP:NOT claims. From WP:MILL, "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles." Not only does this article site additional, unique sources, but there are no other articles that can make similar claims of notability. If there is a constructive suggestion as to how to present this article to more closely reflect different rationales, within the Wikipedia guidelines, please provide them as we are all interested in making Wikipedia the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:SELFQUOTE about quoting own essays. Regarding WP:MILL: the article doesn't make clear whether the subject has at least the tiniest possible differences from generic learning management system, and no reliable source helps to find out the difference. This may also be regarded as violation of WP:CFORK BTW. The awards do not make a valid claim of notability, and there's nothing much apart from those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing WP:SELFQUOTE. I have now read it and we could discuss under another line the section called 'Reasons not to quote your own essay'. The article in question provides unique content relative to social learning management, which is radically different than a commoditized learning management system. This is cited in the article and referenced by the American Society for Training and Development. The "Valid" claim of notability comes from the unique position of what a social learning management system is, not just the awards, and is all referenced by credible sources. That is why this article should exists and provides valuable information to a Wikipedia viewer as no other articles exist that is similar. Besides being one of the 1st social learning management system in the market, receiving some of the best awards/recognitions in the industry for the unique offering, and the only article about social learning management in Wikipedia, what more would you suggest to make this article 'better'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our assessment of sources (other then awards) differ fundamentally. I'm cease further commenting in this AfD in order to make way for other editors, though my position remains unchanged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing WP:SELFQUOTE. I have now read it and we could discuss under another line the section called 'Reasons not to quote your own essay'. The article in question provides unique content relative to social learning management, which is radically different than a commoditized learning management system. This is cited in the article and referenced by the American Society for Training and Development. The "Valid" claim of notability comes from the unique position of what a social learning management system is, not just the awards, and is all referenced by credible sources. That is why this article should exists and provides valuable information to a Wikipedia viewer as no other articles exist that is similar. Besides being one of the 1st social learning management system in the market, receiving some of the best awards/recognitions in the industry for the unique offering, and the only article about social learning management in Wikipedia, what more would you suggest to make this article 'better'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:SELFQUOTE about quoting own essays. Regarding WP:MILL: the article doesn't make clear whether the subject has at least the tiniest possible differences from generic learning management system, and no reliable source helps to find out the difference. This may also be regarded as violation of WP:CFORK BTW. The awards do not make a valid claim of notability, and there's nothing much apart from those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Using your own Wikipedia essay to substantiate your own opinion should not be considered part of this discussion. There have been no examples or detailed information provided to validate the WP:MILL claims. My opinion is that this does not apply as no other Wikipedia articles exist that are similar. None. By definition, this would exclude WP:MILL rationales and your basis for WP:NOT claims. From WP:MILL, "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles." Not only does this article site additional, unique sources, but there are no other articles that can make similar claims of notability. If there is a constructive suggestion as to how to present this article to more closely reflect different rationales, within the Wikipedia guidelines, please provide them as we are all interested in making Wikipedia the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, and both are perfectly valid and policy-based here. Wikilawyering is particularly not helpful here, as per WP:N if the subject is not excluded per WP:NOT (and it is, as one may see from WP:MILL), and it was covered in non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of topic (no single source of a kind) it is "presumed" to be worth inclusion, though WP:NBIZ rationale rebuts this presumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Many of the sources are by a single publisher. --TheChampionMan1234 01:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the "sources" list is full of self-published material, mirror sites (of self-published material), broken links and non-RS blogs. If you remove everything that doesn't constitute either "independent" or "reliable", the subject would seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH by a good distance. Fairly obvious promo-spam from what I can see. Article was declined 3 times at AFC for being promo but was created anyway. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2012 (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.