Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cropio


 * 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. apparent consensus hat the source sare insufficient  DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Cropio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non notable product. I was only able to find one independent source with substantial discussion. Two or three more like that and I would class this as notable. (there were a number of press releases and comments obviously directly based on PRs. There were also a few passing mentions.) This article was very recently stubbified after a mention at the Teahouse, The last pre-stub version is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cropio&oldid=710349077 and might be of interest. The only sources removed by the stubbing were to the site of the company that produces this software. DES (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that there is apparently a variety of wine called "Cropio" which can confuse searches. DES (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless I'm missing something, two thirds of these sources are just press-releases, or of that flavour. They are therefore not reliable, certainly not independent of the subject, and purely for promotional purposes. (Thanks to for pointing out my error, below! As he says, that leaves just one RS. Cheers!). Fortuna  Imperatrix Mundi 
 * , I believe that the Agricultural Review article now quoted in the Wikipedia article is not based on a Press release. It describes a detailed process of evaluating the service, and seems to be a specialized Consumer Reports-like evaluation. As such, I judge it to be a fully independent source. Other articles at that site seem to evaluate many different high-end agricultural products and services. However, one source is not sufficient, and i could not find any other comparable source. I make this post merely in the interests of accuracy and full disclosure. DES (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing at all yet for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as perdiscussion above; insufficient RS to demonstrate independent notability. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  12:08, 13 April 2016 (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.