Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlagScan

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 keep. Despite apparent sockpuppetry in some of the !votes, there is a consensus for at least a weak keep. Agree with some contributors that it is borderline - this article would benefit from some thorough research into additional reliable sources, if it's to survive here in the long term. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

PlagScan

PlagScan (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 notabilty. Only one source appears to be independent and that hardly demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as I see nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - PlagScan is popular for it's plagiarism checking service especially in Germany. On Alexa.com website PlagScan has a global rank around 25,000. This is quite good and even better than PlagTracker and Unplag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumgarner (talk • contribs) 16:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability established by [1][2][3]. Also see refs in Unplag and PlagTracker. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

• Week keep. The first of KVNG's sources looks okay, the second looks like a warmed over blog post on the first, and the third is a trivial mention. However, [4], which, along with the iffy nature of KVNG's second source, may be close enough. --joe decker^talk 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources provided by Kvng and Joe Decker.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PlagScan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Has a higher Alexa Ranking than Unplag and PlagTracker. Many outside sources refer to PlagScan, see external list, therefore the requirements for significant coverage of reliable sources are met. --knopfie^talk 19:50, 22 November (UTC)
• Keep - They are respected and have an impact in the educational field. PlagScan exists many years now, Unplug has just been launched in 2014 and has a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knopfiie (talk • contribs) 04:05, 23 November 2015 (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.