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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply

TalentLMS

TalentLMS (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

References seem to only be non-notable sources and blogs. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same, at best passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MT Train ^Discuss 09:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- The article needs improvement. Still there are hundrends of related references on News, Books & Scholars. The product is currently number one on Capterra's list of most afforable LMSs [1] and number four on the list of most user friendly LMSs [2]. It also has hundrends of end-user reviews on directories like Capterra, Getapp and G2Crowd. Pxtreme75 ( talk) 16:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment User:Pxtreme75 is the author and primary contributor to this article. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not seeing quality sources - PR/business as usual level of coverage only. Seems to fail WP:NCORP. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete Entirely promotional chock-full of unnecessary details and promotional phrasing, fails WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for marketing/promotion which appears to be the sole purpose of this article. Oh the references, most are PRIMARY sources and fail the criteria for establishing notability. Of the others, elearningindustry.com is not intellectually independent or neutral as you can request a "quotation" on the website where they recommend LMS companies (among them TalentLMS) and they also feature TalentLMS as an advertiser, therefore fails WP:RS and possibly WP:ORGIND. The academia.edu link also fails to be intellectually independent as the paper's authors describe themselves as follows: In this paper we briefly present our efforts to design the first versión of the gamification engine that will enhance the Talent LMS platform. Since the designers cannot be intellectually independent, this reference fails WP:ORGIND. The other references focus on the product and not the company and fail WP:CORPDEPTH - perhaps there is a case for the product to have an article but there are not enough references to meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 15:53, 4 December 2017 (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.