Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellucian

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. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellucian

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGCRIT. Refs mix of press releases and event, conferences and run of the mill refs. Previously deleted. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major company; there should be better financial data, even though it is private, not public, and we should include it. The article itself is not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be but the references are chronic and they don't satisfy WP:ORGIND nor WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources present suggest this passes WP:NCORP or GNG. Sources are limited to primary, press releases and their rewrites. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Providers of "solutions" are not inherently notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:13, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I have the feeling that there is a significant body of supporting reliably citable content out there, following from @DGG:'s comment. I'll be spending some time digging that up, and hoping to bring this article up to par suitable for retention shortly. If I'm wrong ... I'll come back here and change my !vote accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the references you replaced and added are exceedingly poor. The article doesn't contain a single secondary source which is in-depth coverage, independent of the company.. The comparison to Oracle is hype which fails WP:ORGIND, certainly Gartner doesn't think so. I guess I will need to go through each reference in turn. It is certainly noticeable that most of the references assert WP:NCORP, admittedly not included in the rationale, but the evidence is that multiple sources that are independent of the topic is not self evident. scope_creep^Talk 23:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, gotta say you are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for encouraging people to contribute. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It shouldn't be this hard to delete an article when it is so very obvious that there is not sufficiently decent references to support it, instead a quite considerable amount of time is required which is entirely wasteful. Looking at the references:

Ref 1. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Is primary and fails of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders

Ref 2. Fails [WP:CORPDEPTH]] USA Today:Newspaper article from USA today stating that AI is very useful. as an example of a type of company or product being discussed This is WP:PUFF. Everybody and their dog is saying is AI is useful.

Ref 3 Is a name drop.

Ref 4 New CEO interview. Very little on Ellucian itself. Majority of article discusses previous career.

Ref 5 Fails WP:ORGIND. Is a press release. Not sufficient to establish notability, press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials

Ref 6 Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Is a primary, the landing page of the company and proves nothing more that it exists.

Ref 7 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND Dependent coverage An event listing. Transitory, short lived and low in information, everything this encyclopedia doesn't want.

Ref 8 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND Dependent coverage Another event listings page.

Ref 9 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage

Ref 10 Only tangentially related to the company.

Ref 11 Fails WP:ORGIND. This is press release

Ref 12 Fails WP:ORGIND. This is press release

Ref 13 Fails WP:ORGIND. Fragment of a press release

Ref 14 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Single word name drop

Ref 15 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business

Ref 16 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business

Ref 17 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH of a capital transaction, such as raised capital

Ref 18 Fails WP:ORGIND of product or service offerings

References 19 to 25 are similarly poor, primary in nature and not a single secondary source amongst them. Nothing of depth. scope_creep^Talk 16:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Comment Ellucian and it's products have had non-trivial coverage in multiple published peer reviewed journals. I have access through an internal database at my university so I apologize for not being able to provide a url. They may be available online, but that's not how I am currently accessing them. See the following articles:

"Create ADA‐compliant learning experiences for all students"; Sutton, Halley, Disability Compliance for Higher Education, February 2017, Vol.22(7), pp.1-5 (Also published in Recruiting & Retaining Adult Learners, March 2017, Vol.19(6), pp.1-5 and Dean and Provost, February 2017, Vol.18(6), pp.4-5)
"Technical Community College Achieves Smarter Data Integration with Kore Technologies", Database Trends and Applications, Dec 2018/Jan 2019, Vol.32(6), p.9
"Entrinsik Informer Helps North Iowa Area Community College Optimize Decision Making", Database Trends and Applications, Oct/Nov 2014, Vol.28(5), pp.26-27
"Rocket Software Receives Distinguished Award.(MV SOLUTIONS)" (article is about award given to Ellucian), Database Trends & Applications, 2018, Vol.32(1), p.26(1)
"MOBILE AND CLOUD BASED SYSTEMS PROPOSAL FOR A CENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS", Machado, Leandro ; Rita, Felipe ; Santos, Carlos, Independent Journal of Management & Production, Apr/Jun 2017, Vol.8(2), pp.271-286 (lots of indepth coverage in this article)
"The Myths and Realities of Business Ecosystems", Fuller, Jack ; Jacobides, Michael ; Reeves, Martin, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2019, Vol.60(3), pp.1-9
"Enhancing the employee engagement through the organizational climate (a study of school of business and management)", Hary Febriansyah, Dematria Pringgabayu, Nurfaisa Hidayanti, Feny Citra Febrianti, Journal of Business and Retail Management Research, Apr 2018, Vol.12(3)
"Student information system satisfaction in higher education: the role of visual aesthetics", Ramírez-Correa, Patricio Esteban ; Rondán-Cataluña, Francisco Javier ; Arenas-Gaitán, Jorge

Kybernetes, 03 September 2018, Vol.47(8), pp.1604-1622

"8 Realities Learning Professionals Need to Know About Analytics", Wagner, Ellen, T + D, Aug 2012, Vol.66(8), pp.54-58,8
"Can the Library Contribute Value to the Campus Culture for Learning?", Hufford, Jon R, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, May 2013, Vol.39(3), pp.288-296
"Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline", Siemens, George ; Haythornthwaite, Caroline (Editor) ; de Laat, Maarten (Editor) ; Dawson, Shane (Editor), American Behavioral Scientist, October 2013, Vol.57(10), pp.1380-1400

Easily passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV isn't mentioned in rationale. These are book chapters, article and white-papers are terrible references to establish the bona fides of an article. Y

The last entry Learning Analytics: The Emergence of a Discipline is Ellucian saying they going to adopt a course, in only two words. The "8 Realities Learning Professionals Need to Know About Analytics" states only commercial Course Signal product now available from Ellucian.. This one Create ADA‐compliant learning experiences for all students talks about Martin LaGrow, designing a course in a small paragraph. Etrinsik Informer Helps North Iowa Area Community College Optimize Decision Making is a name drop. Rocket Software Receives Distinguished Award.(MV SOLUTIONS) Article not an award given to Ellucian, its about a business partner of Ellucian receiving a growth award and the wording seems to come from a press release. "Enhancing the employee engagement through the organizational climate (a study of school of business and management)" This one is quoting an Ellucian white-paper as a reference. Hardly in-depth secondary sources that satisfy WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 23:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:.Fair enough. I've struck my keep vote. Thanks for your analysis.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NORG & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2019 (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.