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]

@Tigraan: and @DeVerm: If you think it is possible to find other sources then please do so. Otherwise this topic remains not notable per Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - see WP:CRYSTAL. This means the topic has to be notable in the present for the topic to remain on Wikipedia.

The source mentioned above is a local-regional publication. This seems to indicate "Croptracker" doesn't have national or international prominence at this time, and nothing noteworthy has taken place. Look at the software produced by Microsoft or Apple Inc. These have caused societal and cultural shifts - that is noteworthiness per WP:GNG and WP:ORG.

The article itself, in "Niagara This Week" is merely an announcement - a press release - issued by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture about a software management tool and the award. The Ministry is also likely saying it is doing its job through this announcement and other announcements. Press announcements are not considered to be independent sources; see WP:ORGIND. It can be seen that this is a press release because there is no journalistic reporting here, such as would happen in a major Canadian or American newspaper (the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail), mainly because it is an announcement. In other words, there is no editorial integrity involved in that the story wasn't reported by a journalist and then vetted by his or her editors.

It is really lacking as a source. Other sources - such as with journalistic integrity - are needed. In other words, I can see adding this source with others that are considered reliable sources see WP:RS. I am sorry about using these "links" to policies and guidelines - it is just that it helps me to back up what I am saying. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an afterthought (or a suggestion), if one of you or someone else wishes to "userfy" WP:USERFY this page they may do so. This means ending this AfD by agreeing to officially move the "Croptracker" article to a subpage in an editors user space. I would be willing to withdraw my nomination for deletion if someone does this. Please just say so here first. This would give anyone concerned as much time as desired to find notable sources. Who knows this program might rock the world in a few years or more. No one can tell that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Neither Tigraan nor me has offered to adopt this article so please refrain in your attempts to have us userfy it. I try to keep all the guideline links away but it seems that when I use normal English, it doesn't count. I will therefore put one link forward to check upon and that is the essay WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles and please note the word "potential" in there which clearly supports my !vote as well as Tigraan's. We apparently do not share your opinion on the source and find it notable. Also, my search came up with International hits as well. I prefer to give this new article time to establish itself because I see the potential and there is no deadline like I mentioned in my !vote. DeVerm (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DeVerm: I had no intention of userfying this article. I was merely asking if that is what you wish to do. I was giving you an option - and it is an option that you are not interested in - and I have no problem with this.

Also, at this AfD, this is the first time I have heard of "potentially notable" or "potential notoriety" as an argument for "keep". Additonally, you seem to be deriving this view by linking to the view of an essay at WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles.

In regard to that view, it is nice to say there is no deadline and think of it this way in the abstract. However, realistically Wikipedia does not participate in fortelling the future WP:CRYSTAL and it is not a repository for everything WP:NOTEVERYTHING and it is not a platform for promoting a product or endorsing a product WP:SOAPBOX. A topic covered on Wikipedia is supposed to be notable in the present, when it is posted on this project, as a stand-alone topic or article.

If you have discovered "international hits" that are sources please post them to buttress your argument. As I have shown, the "Niagara this Week" article does not seem to qualify as a reliable source WP:RS. According to WP:GNG, "reliable" means sources need to have editorial integrity, which I discussed above. Also, the requirement for notability is significant coverage (the primary subject) by multiple (or various) reliable sources. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Steve but I can't help it that this is the first time that you heard of the essay that I linked which mentions the potential of new articles. Essays are not guidelines but they are also not opposing guidelines. Are you suggesting that you would want me to ignore it and change my vote? That is not how this works, you would have to bring arguments that lead to changing the essay because it is wrong and that would change my point of view. Repeating your list of links that support your delete vote does not work for me so much. DeVerm (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deverm, I hope you will refrain from saying that I am suggesting something that I did not suggest. I never suggested that you change your Ivote, so please drop the rhetoric that seems to describe something I did not say or suggest. I am not interested in you changing your Ivote and I am not interested in changing that essay or any other. Also, I never said the essay was wrong, right, correct, or incorrect. So, please stop reading into what I am saying. I'm not interested in "correcting" or "changing" your point of view either. That is not why I am here. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding my post to which you refer, there was very little repetition in the links that I used. I added a couple more, and I expressed something different when using the others. I'm just trying to be clear. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve you misread my comment. I did not say that you suggest something; I asked if you were suggesting something. The reason that I asked this is because you seem to suggest that the essay viewpoint is "abstract" and "not realistic", followed by your arguments for deleting the article. It just seemed that you were trying to convince me that the essay is flawed. DeVerm (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by cited sources. The Govenment sources cited are AFAIK independent and reliable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm rather concerned about being unable to identify the product. All three refs given refer to "Fruit Tracker", not "CropTracker" (although perhaps they are the same thing) and the Gov't of Canada ref is a project proposal with results, the next to last sentence of which is "An additional deliverable of this project was the inclusion of grape crop into the Fruit Tracker tool, a record keeping software previously developed for apples and berries." That's clearly not going to make the cut for significant coverage. OMAFRA was also pushing the product, so it's not an NPOV source. That leaves only one acceptable source, and without the ability to determine with certainty if that is actually the product the article is about, one source is not going to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]