Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProProfs


 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

ProProfs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no real in depth coverage, just the WP:MILL mentions, rehashed press releases, etc... Praxidicae (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 05:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I found the company as one of the innovative in the e-learning area. It is very practical, many companies use their products. Regarding the links - I found it with only one link and no deletion notice for a couple of years with the templates requests to improve the article. After I added 9 more to confirm, we have deletion notice, this is really weird, and prejudiced in my opinion. I also mention that I'm working on additional links (I already have 3, one from Mashable and 2 more from technical websites) to add and looking for more. Can you, for at least to remove it from the Deletion List? I can show you a hundred of other companies which have no notability whatsoever and one-two links, yet they are on Wikipedia somehow. RossK 05:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)
 * I've started a discussion to determine whether The Next Web article "Online assessment and training platform ProProfs passes 1 million registered content-makers" counts toward ProProfs's notability on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at . —  Newslinger   talk   06:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

https://www.similarweb.com/website/proprofs.com https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/proprofs.com
 * I've added a couple of more links for the article - link 2 (Mashable) and 8 (Ceoworld Magazine) and here in trhe information about the website traffic from two reliable sources:

Both of these websites indicate that ProProfs has a significant amount of traffic and a lot of viewers which may mean they do have a lot of users. RossK 15:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)

I just started to check one by one the other US software companies, checking on how to improve Notability and actually found that the companies had a few links or the links of the same quality like ProProfs:

This one has barely any links whatsoever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qitera

This one promotes its products:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advent_Online_Knowledge,_Inc.

This link has only technical documentation (Do I need to find and provide it?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_R

Can anyone explain me what is the difference and how ProProfs is worse in comparison with other companies? RossK 19:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross kramerov (talk • contribs)
 * The existence of other articles on subjects that might not be notable is not a valid argument for keeping this article. You're welcome to add reliable sources to other articles, or nominate them for deletion if they don't meet the notability guidelines. —  Newslinger  talk   21:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Borderline. I'll defer to other editors. Analysis of sources:
 * ProProfs: Not independent. Company's own website.
 * Mashable: Not significant. Too short.
 * KillerStartups: Not independent. Interview with company founder with no additional analysis.
 * GetApp: Not independent. Owned and operated by Gartner Digital Markets, a paid listing service.
 * Training: Promotional, but possibly acceptable.
 * The Next Web: Promotional. Routine coverage tied to a company metric (registered users) doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH.
 * Cision: Not independent. Press release.
 * The Herald-Dispatch: Acceptable, although local.
 * Blogspot: Not reliable.
 * CEOWORLD magazine: Not significant. Too short.
 * The Next Web: Duplicate of #6.
 * Ventureburn: Not significant. Passing mention in listicle.
 * —  Newslinger  talk   22:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the references mentioned above would work for WP:ORGCRIT other than possibly Herald Dispatch but even that one likely wouldn't fly. The rest are your run-of-the-mill blogs. There is nothing I could find in a search that would satisfy WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I added two new links of Alex Rank(quite a notable source of website traffic) and Similar Web just to show the substantial and stable traffic of the company for this and the previous years. I haven't seen any foul game or tricking as statistics of the traffic websites are stable and technical. It demonstrates that the company is indeed popular. So, in Alexa rating, the company has a global rating of 4122 and 2142 in the USA which is rather impressive taking into consideration we have tens millions of websites. I propose to leave the page as it for now until some more information can be found and verified. Ross kramerov
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take some time to read over Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations. Metrics like Alexa ranks don't make a difference in determining whether a topic qualifies for an article. However, if you can find more independent reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, you'll have a much stronger argument for keeping the article. —  Newslinger  talk   03:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, would think with 250+ employees (according to article) this company would have come to the attention of useable sources (the sources at present are not), doesn't appear to have, so delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per 's analysis and my own reading of the article, which comes close to WP:G11 material. Suggest that User:Brrainstormerr/sandbox/ProProfs also be deleted; it's a (blanked) copy of this.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2019 (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.