Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosoft Learning Corporation

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. ugen 64 20:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Prosoft Learning Corporation
This article, along with a series of others was created by username Prosoft Learning. Clearly, this is advertising. Someguysomewhere 00:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) And Microsoft's isn't?

Prosoft Learning is noteworthy because it manages two industry standard certification programs: CIW and CTP
 * Delete I've heard of Microsoft. I've never heard of this company, and I can't find anything on them beyond press releases and company pages. I don't see why they are noteworthy. A.Kurtz 00:51, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 23:04, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Prosoft listing is not promoting anything - just briefly informing people about what it does and what it offers for those who may be curious. Other companies are doing the same on Wikipedia. SA 23:02, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC) Prosoft Learning
 * Comment: This was apparently either never listed on vfd or removed out of process, so I'm bringing it to today's page for resolution. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 03:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Prosoft gets over 500,000 Google hits. I know that can't always prove anything, but it has a website. I think it should be expanded a lot though. Howabout1 03:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You should check how many of those hits were unique, prosoft learning corporation gets only 31,000 hits, and an exact search for the name gets 188. Their website has an Alexa rating of 1,834,490. They may provide a useful service to someone, but that is not sufficient grounds for inclusion in an encyclopeida, delete--nixie 06:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Nixie, delete. Radiant_* 09:14, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nixie. --bainer 00:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If Prosoft manages CIW and CTP they're notable. The article is blatant self-promotion -- but that would be OK, if the article were more informative. (Note that some useful info was lost when Hodg "de-commericalized" the article.) So the thing to do is keep it, maybe roll it back to a more complete version, and add an explain significance template. If they don't come back and fix it up, then we can do another VFD.---Isaac R 23:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.