Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instructure


 * 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   no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Instructure

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

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. Once speedy deleted and then recreated by the same author; retagged for speedy deletion but this time declined. Speedy Delete as spam or non-notable. I42 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: article creator has added additional sources but thus far they are all self-published sources, one of which establishes that there is a conflict of interest. I42 (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the non-neutral claim. The content provided is unbiased and informative, and offers references for all statements.  The external links provided are to multiple third-party sources, including a business write-up and evaluations by two notable individuals in the field of educational technology.  Individuals in this field use blogs as a primary means of publication and should not be discounted so lightly.  There are no longer any links to the home pages of other companies, but instead evaluations of those products third parties.  These are the same types of (or better) references provided on pages such as Brizzly, Present.ly or Mixero.  The previous speedy delete only occurred because I wasn't fast enough to add in a hangon tag, and shouldn't be considered in this discussion.  As stated on the talk page, I am happy to modify any content if it appears to be unbiased in nature.  My goal is to flesh out the list of Next-Generation Learning Management Systems mentioned on Wikipedia to include those products that are beginning to gain traction.  I chose to start with Instructure because, as a co-founder, I see little point in continuing on to the other products mentioned if I can't even get my own page to stick.  Again, the content on the actual page is pretty concise, and is my first attempt at fleshing out to learning management system category on Wikipedia.Brian.whitmer (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added mentions of specific schools involved in the development process, along with non-self-published information source. Requested help from additional parties in removing biased POV from article as well and modifications have been made. Brian.whitmer (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Since nomination for deletion, page has been modified by a third party in attempt to remove biased POV, additional references added, non-self-published reference link added. Content on this page is now similar in tone and content to the Meridian_KSI page (which only has company-site references), for example. Please advise if additional changes need to be made.Brian.whitmer (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which, ironically, has been speedily deleted - as this article should be. I42 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. References given in page are either not independent reliable source or unrelated material.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the list of references, please see for notable, independent reliable source of information.Brian.whitmer (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm afraid a university newspaper does not count as significant coverage and is not the most reliable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe I missed it, but I don't see comments on university papers being unreliable on the page you referenced. Brian.whitmer (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The references provided are similar in quality and reliability to other recent entrants to the LMS market, for example Schoology. Brian.whitmer (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the sources seem adequate for notability,    DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 13 June 2010 (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.