Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Campus Agreement


 * 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   keep. I think there's a consensus here, albeit a somewhat weak one, that this is a notable agreement. In particular noone has responded with a delete rationale in the week since Smallman presented his sources. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Campus Agreement

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

article has had refimprove since july 2007 and three years later it is still just as bad. list of participating schools adds nothing to article and if you remove the list you have three lines left. what is next? having an article on every software products eula? maybe adobe eula should be an article along with non-educational microsoft eula! Misterdiscreet (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, although it's a tricky case. Lots of schools have signed up for the program, but I don't think that alone makes it notable (would we expect to have an article about student discount programs for Dell computers or lab equipment?).  Lots of university websites have information about the MSCA, but I wouldn't call that significant coverage.  The article talk page links to half a dozen articles in student newspapers, all of which amount to "Hey, did you know you can get cheap MS software at the university bookstore?"  There isn't even any substantial coverage on Slashdot, which would surely have paid attention if there was anything genuinely notable here. Jd4v15 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my position; see below. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a major commercial arrangement in the industry.    DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that claim seems like original research Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment bit of coverage here from when it was first launched . Guest9999 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT covers the initial coverage Misterdiscreet (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep this is indeed a major commercial arrangement in the industry. This agreement covers the usage of Microsoft software on various campuses (civilian and military). Some sources to this would be:
 * University: contract might be dropped because of low student participation and changes to available software
 * 70- Campus Licenses, Department of the Navy
 * OIT considers Microsoft Vista for campus computers
 * Microsoft's new college curriculum, CNET
 * Buying new kit? Do your homework first, Guardian
 * Software an Individual Choice, The Harvard Crimson
 * Ask SIPB September 1, 2006, MIT
 * IBM Grant Gives Students the Power of Creation, The Spectrum Student Periodical
 * This license governs the usage of Microsoft products on campuses, and as such it is widely used...and thus most probably notable.Smallman12q (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Navy link is a procurement notice, the Harvard Crimson link is a brief letter to a campus newspaper, and the Guardian and MIT links include only passing mentions of the MSCA. To me, those don't qualify as significant coverage. If the point is to demonstrate widespread participation, the article itself already does that (assuming 60+ colleges and universities count as "widespread").
 * But. Most of Smallman12q's other links (the CNET article is the exception) are local news stories from campus newspapers, and there are more links like this in the article. I've been thinking about it, and I now believe these stories do constitute significant coverage, especially because there are so many of them from so many different institutions. It bugs me that we don't have better sources than that, but nonetheless, I'm changing my position to Weak Keep. Jd4v15 (talk) 01:29, 13 March 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.