Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instructure (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructure

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

A new editor with the screenname Jaydillinger (talk · contribs) created this AFD page with copypasted rationale of "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because Non-neutral article on a non-notable software product, referenced only with a link to the author's own blog (the other "references" are a link within Wikipedia and to the homepages of similar companies given as examples) and zero sources found. Next Generation learning Management is non specific and not a differentiator. Company advertising non-encyclopedic. Is a temporary article based on company prominence in space. Please see notability requirements.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. For valid criteria, see CSD." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't figured it out but there are funny things going on with this article, perhaps significant editing by competitors. This edit in particular appears strange. ElKevbo (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I work for Instructure, and yes, there's something strange going on. This is the second time this page has been stripped of all references and then nominated for deletion. I believe it is the same user, and he appears to have some affiliation with the Gilfus Education Group (Gilfus seems to have some kind of tie to Blackboard, the largest company in the space), as that is where the majority of the original IP address' edits happened (96.255.250.34), and the second time (75.197.194.2) he added a link to Gilfus on Educational Technology before vandalizing the Instructure page. Nothing has changed significantly (other than the addition of new sources and some cleanup by other users, including User:Haakon) since the last nomination for deletion in May... what are the guidelines around repeat nominations? Brian.whitmer (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note your use of the term vandalism... Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see [edit warring Wikipedia:Edit_warring])." --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many editors focus on specific articles and topics for editing including specific articles in specific industries. Please be aware that the majority of editing is based on notability requirements. Authors of this article should review: Wikipedia:Notability for requirements. Also please review Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Unless specific Notability can be accomplished this article should be deleted until the article is notable. Please also review: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "...based on prominence in the space" seems like a justification for keeping, not deleting. "zero sources found" is patently false, even after the article was stripped of references. There are multiple sources to both print articles and reputable online eLearning writers. This nomination is by a competitor and I recommend it be cancelled. Brian.whitmer (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "...We need to open this article up to other administrators for comments with a review of notability to determine appropriateness for this article. --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. References given in page are either not independent reliable sources or unrelated material. Other independent editors should submit Delete or Keep to determine next steps in article status. -- Wikipedia:Notability --Jaydillinger (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new user Jaydillinger appears to be trying to speedy delete LMS company web sites (see Instructure and also Thinking Cap -- where the speedy delete is a copy-paste of what was put on Instructure's page, and actually applies even less there than it does here). The last time this happened for Instructure it was an IP address whose history was in maintaining the article on a competitor's founder's pages (Stephen Gilfus, Gilfus Education Group). This time the new IP address added a link to that same page to another article, and then nominated this page for speedy deletion. The two seem to be related, and I suspect Jaydillinger may be associated with them as well (I can't prove that, obviously, although this is not a highly edited article so it seems possible, and the edits performed by the user, especially on the Talk:Instructure page are suspect). Brian.whitmer (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (*Note, I'm a company employee) Multiple news sources cited, as well as a press release covering the Instructure-Turnitin partnership, both of which indicate notability. None of the sources cited are unrelated material and all except the Educause link are independent. Google and Twitter searches bring up plenty of additional results. The article has been worked by multiple editors to remove biased pov and additional unbiased sources have been added since the last nomination, so I believe there is even less reason now to delete than there was before. In my opinion this re-nomination is unfounded. Brian.whitmer (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Gosh, where do we start with this one? Started by the acknowledge co-creator of the company (should have been deleted as WP:BIAS); and then nominated by Kiteinthewind under WP:CSD G11, which was contested by article creator/co-co-founder. Since then has been an ongoing edit war between company employees and clear and obvious competitor-editors! Nominated twice for deletion, this is third debate. Lets get back to basics: doesn't presently meet WP:GNG or specifically WP:ORG, delete it! When they do something of significance and passes WP:ORG, then I would support inclusion. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the second discussion. See the handy box at the top of this very page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only item from the list of references (as of this version) is the Desert news item. The others either establish facts but do not mention Instructure (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education), or are not a reliable source (such as press release or blog). That's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Yet another non-consumer software business that feels the need to call its product a "management system"; advertising and not notable: an educational software company that provides a hosted (Software as a Service) learning management system for post-secondary learning institutions called Canvas. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons given already. Does not pass WP:GNG in particular. The main editor's blatant bias does not help either, although I commend him for being straightforward about it. Haakon (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is from blogs, press releases or consists of passing mention. Not notable. Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2010 (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.