- 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- OpenSIS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. The article seems an advertise. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Software. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 12:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: Very PROMO (with the large number of screenshots)... I've done a search, there is nothing about this "portal" (I'm not sure what it is) to be found Brief mention here [1] in a list of similar software. Gsearch brings up primary sources, then social media... Nothing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Delete: Agreed with User:Oaktree b in toto. Not only is this blatantly WP:PROMO, it's badly written promo without any attempt to hide that it's promo. Also seems to fail WP:NOTE even excluding the promo issues. The only sources I can find are two in the first several pages of results that aren't themselves clearly promotional in nature, and neither of those are particularly high quality, or aid in notability. Foxtrot620 (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. When I read this promo page aloud, I hear Charlie Brown's teacher speaking. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Delete: This article seems to violate WP:NOTPROMO. Above comments and an inspection of the article indicates multiple issues: no references, not correctly structured, written like an advert. Unfortunately this article has no reasons for being kept. 11WB (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
{{subst:AfD comment|1= Thank you for the feedback. I understand the concerns and will work to improve the article in line with Wikipedia’s content and notability guidelines. The goal is to provide an informative, neutral, and well-sourced entry on openSIS. I’ll revise the content and add independent, reliable sources to address the issues raised.
Kindly allow me some time to make these changes. Appreciate your consideration. Sarika os4ed (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC) }}
- If the article can be improved within the time this AfD is open, I would be happy to change my vote. I believe this article will be due for potential closure after July 2. 11WB (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
{{subst:AfD comment|1= Following the feedback here, I’ve drafted a significantly improved version of the openSIS article. It now has a neutral tone, better structure, and includes citations from independent third-party sources.
You can review the updated draft in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarika_os4ed/sandbox
I'm happy to continue refining it based on community feedback. Thank you for the opportunity to improve the article. Sarika os4ed (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC) }}
- @Sarika os4ed It is definitely respectable that you've taken the time to write a new draft for this software. Unfortunately, at this time I don't think this software is notable enough for it's own article. That isn't to say it won't be in the future, however. If more reliable references come to surface then perhaps this draft could be expanded as necessary and submitted to WP:AfC? 11WB (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. I understand the notability concerns and appreciate the clarity. I'm currently reaching out to gather more reliable third-party references from past deployments and media mentions. If the article ends up being removed for now, I’ll work on strengthening the sources and resubmit through WP:AfC when appropriate. Thanks again for your time and guidance. Sarika os4ed (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- No problem at all! WP:AfC is excellent for editors who are new to writing articles for Wikipedia. I've seen more experienced editors say that creating articles is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia (time being a big part of that). An AfD is never an insult to the editor, rather it's a respectful way to establish consensus on whether the topic is notable (among other things). Even though something may not be notable now, it could be in the future! Happy editing! 11WB (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2025 (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.