Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinking Cap LMS


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thinking Cap LMS

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable software product. PROD removed in conjunction with source clean-up, but remaining sources don't establish notability. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 21:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a notable software that can be searched and found through out the internet.  The references/sources provided prove that it's wiki worthy.  This item is searched, reviewed and discussed by third (unbiased) parties in the e-Learning software industry.  Please help me understand what would be considered a "better" source than the ones already provided. TabithaFournier (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:N. It is a long guideline, but understanding it will save you a lot of wiki-pain going forward. In short, in order to have a stand-alone article, a subject must be notable.  Notability is measured by coverage in reliable sources.  WP:RS is another long read, but it clearly explains what is a reliable source, and what isn't. To meet the notability guideline, a subject must have multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article either are not reliable, or are trivial mentions.  Notability (to Wikipedia's standards) is not established.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say... If you can provide links to the reviews and discussions by unbiased third parties, then the subject will be proven notable... But those reviews and discussions are not cited in the article today. Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But, I do have links for reviews and discussions. Am I too list them in the article as opposed to using them as a reference? Is this correct? TabithaFournier (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You should add the link to the ADL where the Thinking Cap LMS is listed as a certified LMS. It was only the 3rd LMS to be certified as SCORM 2004 Certified which is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.216.90 (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will try to explain this very clearly... You need coverage in an independent, reliable publication. Multiple instances of such coverage are generally used to indicate notability.  Being the 3rd LMS to be certified does not indicate that the subject is notable.  An independent journal, periodical, etc. publishing a story or article that includes this fact in the article does indicate that the subject is notable.  The webpage of the product itself, the webpage of the people giving out the certification, or even a press release about the certification are not reliable sources.  It doesn't need to be in the Wall Street Journal or anything like that, but just in a publication (electronic or print) that has editorial oversight. So if there is a journal for the field of LMS, or even a general education journal, this would be perfect. But if the author of an article is also the publisher (for example a press release, a blog, or an individual person or company's website) then it is not reliable.


 * Once you have found coverage like this, you should use the sources to improve the Wikipedia article. If the published article says that Thinking Cap was certified, then add a section to the Wikipedia article that summarizes this and use your published article as a citation.  If you need technical help citing your references look at WP:CITE and WP:ILC.  Look at other articles, like any of Wikipedia's Featured Articles for examples of how citations get added to articles.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * delete Doesn't seem to have any real, lasting notability. OSbornarfcontribs. 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient third party coverage references to meet WP:N.  Sandstein   08:42, 29 January 2012 (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.