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. J04n(talk page) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeerScholar[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Notability requirements for product or web site. This teaching tool has only been written about, in published reliable sources, by its own developers or publisher, or those connected with the University of Toronto. The article is largely written by the professor's own students, who will probably turn up here to defend it. Colin°^Talk 21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep - I was only able to find one reliable source here: [1], but combined with the sources already in the article, I believe this is a sufficiently notable subject per WP:NSOFTWARE. (There may be a better guideline than NSOFTWARE, but since PeerScholar is described as an online tool, it seems to be appropriate in absence of a better guideline.) - Mr X 22:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the proper Notability guideline, not an essay. We need significant third-party secondary sources. The article just cites publications by the authors of the software. I can't read the whole Highbeam article, but what is available (after the "According to recent research from Toronto, Canada") is entirely quoted text, presumably from a press-release. So this isn't third-party and independent. Colin°^Talk 23:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more careful examination of the sources has convinced me to change my !vote. The article sources seem to all be primary sources and the source that I found on HighBeam seems to be the result of a press release or similar promotional publication. - Mr X 00:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The only neutral reference source (non primary) offered for the product (i.e. not the product's creator or its publisher) is Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery which has no info. Star767 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Article appears to have been edited by multiple throwaway accounts with similar editing patterns to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kynatalie from the University of Toronto so there may be a COI issue also. --Kkmurray (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually this class here from the U of T [2]. There are 1700 students all told to do the exact same thing (make two edits to Wikipedia). The program in question "PeerScholar" was written by their prof which is why we see all these students editing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as a NN product / borderline advertisement. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not being honest with our readers that the sources have conflict of interest per Wikipedia:Third-party sources#Non-independent sources. Delete because it seems to be an advertisement and is based mostly on sources with COI. Algébrico (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons identified above.Kabirat (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.