Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croptracker

Croptracker

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, this seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. It appears the original author is a red-linked SPA having only authored this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Like all similar articles, the probability of it being an SPA promoting their product is high. But that is not reason to delete the article.

The "further reading" link to Niagara This Week looks fine, but it would be better to have another source. I could find a few scattered across the web but nothing really high-quality. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really does not meet the notability bar on Wikipedia per GNG and WP:PSTS. Also, can you please sign you User Name (this is part of the process). Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Niagara This Week article (here) is (I think) an independent, secondary, reliable source dealing with the subject in detail. If you do not agree, please say why exactly rather than "does not pass GNG". This being said, WP:GNG requires sources, hence the "weak" qualifier in my !vote. And sorry about the lack of signature. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Tigraan that the source is good. This makes it plausible that more sources can be found given some time because we have no deadline. DeVerm (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]