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]

Well, this is interesting. I somehow missed this - that now we are talking about two different products, one of which may not exist, i.e. "Croptracker". I have to wonder if this is intentional. Even more confusing: One of the opening lines in our "Croptracker" article claims that this "software"..." won a Premier’s Award for Agri-Food Innovation Excellence in 2007" and cites a source. The source [1] claims that "Fruit Tracker" won this 2007 award.

However, according to Premier's Award page, in 2007 it was "William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms" [2] who won the award - and not "Croptracker" or "Fruitracker". How did Mr. Nightingale win this award?

William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms (LaSalatte), is the recipient of the Premier's Award of $100,000. He was recognized for his work in improving Ontario's fresh vegetable yields by pioneering the use of high tunnels over vegetable field crops

He "pioneered the use of high tunnels" and he didn't use or invent "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker". This is ridiculous. It is beginning to occur to me, that whoever created this page in the first place could have used this set of poor references to mislead - and use Wikipedia as an advertising platform - because - are we talking about Fruitracker or Croptraker? I looked at the other "Ministry" awards for 2007 [3], [4] and "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker" is not there.

Also, it looks like Fruit Tracker came from something called AMI [5] and not from Dragonfly Information Technology Inc. for Croptracker. Hence, this rely isn't a reliable source because Fruit Tracker is not being independently reported - this is an AMI publication (see the imprint at the top of the page) - and they have an invested interest in promoting this product - not to mention what appears to be inaccurate information about the award . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name: there is this simple explanation on the website of the manufacturer: Fruit Tracker, Apple Tracker, Grape Tracker, and Crop Tracker are all built on Dragonfly's award-winning and internationally recognized software platform. It seems they just rename it for any crop it is being used on. We need redirects.

The confusion about who made this software or better, who provided funding: from reading the sources it appears that both the government and the growers have teamed up with the software developer, resulting in all of them claiming the program. Here is some additional info: [6]

The Awards: I found awards for both 2007 and 2014. They are under regional and under the growers organization. It came up with a search followed by a search within a page: The East-Central Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers formed a strategic alliance to develop innovative technology that will help them compete in the wholesale market. Their fruit-tracker software will help growers [...]

Sources: in addition to the "niagara this week" source, here are Growing Produce [7] and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture [8] and Fruit & Vegetable Magazine [9] page 16. DeVerm (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see CropTracker in any of the sources you provided. So, as far I can tell, it is not used by the Ontario Ministry. I do see Fruit Tacker, Fusion, and Apple Tracker. Hopefully, you understand, all this means is that these exist. Especially, this is just a little blurb [10] and merely an announcement. It shows that a couple of programs exist and that is it. Also, I did not see the awards that were awarded in any of the sources you provided. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise, as far as I can tell, no awards were received, and the AMI source is pretty much inaccurate. Because the AMI source claims Fruit Tracker came from only AMI. I have looked at Dragonfly's website and they claim Fruit Tracker is their program.

I did not realize I had to serve it to such high standards. Here is the link: [11] It says: "Dragonfly's cloud-based software, referred to as Crop Tracker / Fruit Tracker / Grape Tracker / Apple Tracker, has been designed with growers, packers, distributors, industry associations, and retailers in mind." DeVerm (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then the awards. Here is a direct link to the 2007 award; the 2014 one can be found in a similar way: [12] DeVerm (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Niagara This Week" article is still trivial sourcing. These sources are all unremarkable according to Wikipedia standards. For example, this is very much an announcement [13], or website type press release, or advertisement on a Ministry website. This [14] indicates Apple Tracker exists - but does not speak for notability. The Fruit & Vegetable Magazine is a trade publication, so it's job is to speak highly of industry products. In other words, it is not independent reporting. These that I have just mentioned are not independently reported, significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources. These are trivial sources. To accept these, is to lower the standards of Wikipedia. And right now, it seems a number of editors are engaged in removing low grade promotional articles such as this one, that use Wikipedia as platform for advertising their insignificant products, as wonderfully expressed in this signpost article [15].

Also, it is the Ministry of Ontario's job to support business and commerce, so touting various products and giving out awards is part of its job. In other words, none of this stuff on their website is independent reporting in secondary sources. Also, none of this software is remarkable - it has NOT had a significant impact on societies and cultures in the same way that software produced by Apple Inc. or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation which produces Java (software). Also, none of this tracker software is more remarkable than other Crop management software and Farm management software on the market - to get an idea - here is whole bunch of them -->[16]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Niagara This Week is not a good source, frankly, I do not know what is. It is an article dedicated to the topic, written by the newspaper's staff, of a reasonable length and tone. The newspaper's circulation is 150k (link) which (although not huge) is plainly not trivial.

Similarly, dismissing government sources as "unreliable because COI" is beyond me. In that particular case, I think that the award is non-selective and trivial hence brings little notability, but your argument seems to be that anytime a government is talking about a company from their country it should be dismissed as non-independent coverage - and I strongly disagree with that view. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added sources to the article. I also agree with Tigraan that the source from the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture is WP:RS and the articles in the newspaper and the two magazines I added are as well. DeVerm (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The AMI source is not independent [17] - they have funded "Fruit Tracker" and this is their publication. Also, it is a trivial source. This source: [18] contains only passing mention of "Fruit Tracker" and does not qualify as significant coverage. Also, the previous awards mentioned are trivial and not notable awards, but there has yet to be proof that any of items mentioned, Fruit Tracker, Crop Tracker, Apple Tracker and so on have received any trivial award from the Ministry. There are examples of notable awards on Wikipedia (for comparison) if you wished to take a look around. The Wikipedia article that we are discussing is unreliable anyway because it is not clear which unremarkable software program this article is about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source is an announcement and only mentions "Apple Tracker" in a blurb so this does not qualify as significant coverage. The article in this source ("issue_id":251654,"page":16}}) pertaining to "Fruit Tracker" ( a different tracker) is an announcement with how to instructions. This does not qualify for significant coverage, see :WP:CORPDEPTH. All the sources put together do not create significant coverage for the above stated reasons. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]