Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skoolcheckout


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 06:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Skoolcheckout

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find evidence of notability for this application. No independent references are provided with the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (1.)The application is used on several schools' websites, you can checkout http://lufem.skool.ng/manage http://hansebol.skool.ng/manage and several other sites but for the "no-advert restriction" it would've been included in the writeup. This application is authentic, as I'm a user myself
 * Tweetsmarshal (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it isn't enough that a product is used. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn't cover everything, even if true or useful, but topics that are notable. Check out the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for software and see if you can cite references that establish the product's notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG.- MrX 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article from a WP:SPA account; no evidence that this software is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sources. Google Books found nothing, Google Scholar found nothing, Google Web returned no RS results. Agyle (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (Edited 15 June 2014)
 * That kind of abuse was completely uncalled for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Intended as humor, as "Skool" subject seems ridiculously amateurish and non-notable, but I edited to follow conventional format. Agyle (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Lead section is a copy-and-paste job from this webpage. --LukeSurlt c 11:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not delete Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia is supposed to explain what people would/could search for (though things of notability), such that after being read the user has a basic understanding of the topic. Now there's this application 'skoolcheckout' which people around me what to know about. where else do they go asides wikipedia? Now if this topic/page is deleted, you'll have successfully left some users unsatisfied.
 * Now 'notable' doesn't necessarily mean it has marked 1m hits on google. but that it is something worth the search. How is an application not notable?Tweetsmarshal (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Largo Plazo's previous response to you (toward the beginning of this discussion) provides links that explain what "notable" means in this context. Agyle (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably the first place a person would go to find out about a product is the product's, or its producer's, website, not Wikipedia. As I said earlier, Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the first source for information about everything. It's meant to be a summarization of information on notable topics that can already be found elsewhere, on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re:Presumably the first place a person would go to find out about a product is the product's, or its producer's, website. I get your point exactly, but looking at the application as a general topic and not just a product, I think wikipedia would be my first point of call for explanation. Use apple's SIRI as an example, you wouldn't go to apple.com to understand this app, would you? Now I have taken the pain to go through other products of the same category (e.g Fedena). The only thing I see different(correct me if I'm wrong) is popularity and its base country.
 * Re:summarization of information on notable topicsWP says: Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject... I think skoolcheckout satisfies that.
 * Re:reliable sources that are independent of the subject I totally give in to this argument, the sources are reliable though (because I work closely  with the author) but I  may not be able to 'prove' it just yet. I'll work on it. Plus there is an independent source check here
 * Now WP expects that topics are supposed to grow from 'seed to standard'. That can't happen if the page is deleted from conception, as the page is barely 48hrs old.Tweetsmarshal (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Where you would go to find product information is irrelevant here. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for article inclusion. Your reasoning runs counter to those policies, and if you want them changed, this isn't the appropriate forum for that.


 * The notability assessment here hinges on sources. People in this Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion, if they've assessed the subject properly, have been unsuccessful in locating any significant, independent, reliable source coverage. All the people who suggested deletion are experienced editors who are familiar with AfD assessments and locating reliable sources. Things can be overlooked; sometimes nothing turns up in search engines, but there is coverage offline or from within websites not accessible to search engines. If you do locate sources, just list them here. If the article is deleted and you later find multiple sources of coverage that you think establish notability, you could recreate the article, perhaps using the AfC (Articles for Creation) process to evaluate the topic.


 * Regarding growing articles, time is allowed to improve an article, but this AfD is about the notability of the subject, not the actual article text. An experienced editor generally wouldn't create an article if notability could not be established; there are different alternatives for incubating "in development" articles before they go live like this article. It's understandable that a new editor wouldn't know that, there's a lot to learn about the whole process. One option you could persue, quoted from WP:MERCY: "If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space." The term userfication means the article would be moved to your own user page on Wikipedia, where you can work on it semi-privately; the article is removed from the main namespace, so it would not show up in Google or other search engines. To be honest, I think you'd be wasting your time, as I don't think you're apt to establish notability anyway, unless the subject attracts more notice in the future, but you're welcome to try. Agyle (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What else can I say? If you're gonna delete it, please be quick about itTweetsmarshal (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * AfD discussions normally run at least 7 days to allow interested parties time to respond. Agyle (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete then Userfy - This application definitely has prospects but for now It does not have enough significant coverage to be on Wikipedia. I tried assisting the author of the article in looking for any Nigerian Newspaper that has written something on it but sadly I found none. Darreg (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Relevance does not translate to notability per wiki rules. Darreg (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (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.