Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croptracker

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. This "delete" close is specifically:

  • Without prejudice to draftspacing to Draft:Croptracker; there are some sources and a lot of confusion that make it difficult for AfD commenters to really discuss the notability of the subject itself, so extensive cleanup and research will be required before the topic can be properly evaluted
  • If someone writes an article about the parent company (probably at Dragonfly (software developer), the Croptracker title can be recreated as a redirect (and have its history restored underneath)

Either of these can be requested at WP:REFUND or to me directly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croptracker

[edit]
Croptracker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Also, this seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion. It appears the original author is a red-linked SPA having only authored this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Like all similar articles, the probability of it being an SPA promoting their product is high. But that is not reason to delete the article.
The "further reading" link to Niagara This Week looks fine, but it would be better to have another source. I could find a few scattered across the web but nothing really high-quality. TigraanClick here to contact me 15:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Niagara This Week article (here) is (I think) an independent, secondary, reliable source dealing with the subject in detail. If you do not agree, please say why exactly rather than "does not pass GNG". This being said, WP:GNG requires sources, hence the "weak" qualifier in my !vote. And sorry about the lack of signature. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tigraan: and @DeVerm: If you think it is possible to find other sources then please do so. Otherwise this topic remains not notable per Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - see WP:CRYSTAL. This means the topic has to be notable in the present for the topic to remain on Wikipedia.
The source mentioned above is a local-regional publication. This seems to indicate "Croptracker" doesn't have national or international prominence at this time, and nothing noteworthy has taken place. Look at the software produced by Microsoft or Apple Inc. These have caused societal and cultural shifts - that is noteworthiness per WP:GNG and WP:ORG.
The article itself, in "Niagara This Week" is merely an announcement - a press release - issued by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture about a software management tool and the award. The Ministry is also likely saying it is doing its job through this announcement and other announcements. Press announcements are not considered to be independent sources; see WP:ORGIND. It can be seen that this is a press release because there is no journalistic reporting here, such as would happen in a major Canadian or American newspaper (the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail), mainly because it is an announcement. In other words, there is no editorial integrity involved in that the story wasn't reported by a journalist and then vetted by his or her editors.
It is really lacking as a source. Other sources - such as with journalistic integrity - are needed. In other words, I can see adding this source with others that are considered reliable sources see WP:RS. I am sorry about using these "links" to policies and guidelines - it is just that it helps me to back up what I am saying. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an afterthought (or a suggestion), if one of you or someone else wishes to "userfy" WP:USERFY this page they may do so. This means ending this AfD by agreeing to officially move the "Croptracker" article to a subpage in an editors user space. I would be willing to withdraw my nomination for deletion if someone does this. Please just say so here first. This would give anyone concerned as much time as desired to find notable sources. Who knows this program might rock the world in a few years or more. No one can tell that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn: Neither Tigraan nor me has offered to adopt this article so please refrain in your attempts to have us userfy it. I try to keep all the guideline links away but it seems that when I use normal English, it doesn't count. I will therefore put one link forward to check upon and that is the essay WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles and please note the word "potential" in there which clearly supports my !vote as well as Tigraan's. We apparently do not share your opinion on the source and find it notable. Also, my search came up with International hits as well. I prefer to give this new article time to establish itself because I see the potential and there is no deadline like I mentioned in my !vote. DeVerm (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DeVerm: I had no intention of userfying this article. I was merely asking if that is what you wish to do. I was giving you an option - and it is an option that you are not interested in - and I have no problem with this.
Also, at this AfD, this is the first time I have heard of "potentially notable" or "potential notoriety" as an argument for "keep". Additonally, you seem to be deriving this view by linking to the view of an essay at WP:DEADLINE#View two: Don't rush to delete articles.
In regard to that view, it is nice to say there is no deadline and think of it this way in the abstract. However, realistically Wikipedia does not participate in fortelling the future WP:CRYSTAL and it is not a repository for everything WP:NOTEVERYTHING and it is not a platform for promoting a product or endorsing a product WP:SOAPBOX. A topic covered on Wikipedia is supposed to be notable in the present, when it is posted on this project, as a stand-alone topic or article.
If you have discovered "international hits" that are sources please post them to buttress your argument. As I have shown, the "Niagara this Week" article does not seem to qualify as a reliable source WP:RS. According to WP:GNG, "reliable" means sources need to have editorial integrity, which I discussed above. Also, the requirement for notability is significant coverage (the primary subject) by multiple (or various) reliable sources. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Steve but I can't help it that this is the first time that you heard of the essay that I linked which mentions the potential of new articles. Essays are not guidelines but they are also not opposing guidelines. Are you suggesting that you would want me to ignore it and change my vote? That is not how this works, you would have to bring arguments that lead to changing the essay because it is wrong and that would change my point of view. Repeating your list of links that support your delete vote does not work for me so much. DeVerm (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deverm, I hope you will refrain from saying that I am suggesting something that I did not suggest. I never suggested that you change your Ivote, so please drop the rhetoric that seems to describe something I did not say or suggest. I am not interested in you changing your Ivote and I am not interested in changing that essay or any other. Also, I never said the essay was wrong, right, correct, or incorrect. So, please stop reading into what I am saying. I'm not interested in "correcting" or "changing" your point of view either. That is not why I am here. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding my post to which you refer, there was very little repetition in the links that I used. I added a couple more, and I expressed something different when using the others. I'm just trying to be clear. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Steve you misread my comment. I did not say that you suggest something; I asked if you were suggesting something. The reason that I asked this is because you seem to suggest that the essay viewpoint is "abstract" and "not realistic", followed by your arguments for deleting the article. It just seemed that you were trying to convince me that the essay is flawed. DeVerm (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established by cited sources. The Govenment sources cited are AFAIK independent and reliable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm rather concerned about being unable to identify the product. All three refs given refer to "Fruit Tracker", not "CropTracker" (although perhaps they are the same thing) and the Gov't of Canada ref is a project proposal with results, the next to last sentence of which is "An additional deliverable of this project was the inclusion of grape crop into the Fruit Tracker tool, a record keeping software previously developed for apples and berries." That's clearly not going to make the cut for significant coverage. OMAFRA was also pushing the product, so it's not an NPOV source. That leaves only one acceptable source, and without the ability to determine with certainty if that is actually the product the article is about, one source is not going to meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is interesting. I somehow missed this - that now we are talking about two different products, one of which may not exist, i.e. "Croptracker". I have to wonder if this is intentional. Even more confusing: One of the opening lines in our "Croptracker" article claims that this "software"..." won a Premier’s Award for Agri-Food Innovation Excellence in 2007" and cites a source. The source [1] claims that "Fruit Tracker" won this 2007 award.
However, according to Premier's Award page, in 2007 it was "William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms" [2] who won the award - and not "Croptracker" or "Fruitracker". How did Mr. Nightingale win this award?

William Nightingale, of B & C Nightingale Farms (LaSalatte), is the recipient of the Premier's Award of $100,000. He was recognized for his work in improving Ontario's fresh vegetable yields by pioneering the use of high tunnels over vegetable field crops

He "pioneered the use of high tunnels" and he didn't use or invent "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker". This is ridiculous. It is beginning to occur to me, that whoever created this page in the first place could have used this set of poor references to mislead - and use Wikipedia as an advertising platform - because - are we talking about Fruitracker or Croptraker? I looked at the other "Ministry" awards for 2007 [3], [4] and "Croptracker" or "Fruit Tracker" is not there.
Also, it looks like Fruit Tracker came from something called AMI [5] and not from Dragonfly Information Technology Inc. for Croptracker. Hence, this rely isn't a reliable source because Fruit Tracker is not being independently reported - this is an AMI publication (see the imprint at the top of the page) - and they have an invested interest in promoting this product - not to mention what appears to be inaccurate information about the award . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name: there is this simple explanation on the website of the manufacturer: Fruit Tracker, Apple Tracker, Grape Tracker, and Crop Tracker are all built on Dragonfly's award-winning and internationally recognized software platform. It seems they just rename it for any crop it is being used on. We need redirects.
The confusion about who made this software or better, who provided funding: from reading the sources it appears that both the government and the growers have teamed up with the software developer, resulting in all of them claiming the program. Here is some additional info: [6]
The Awards: I found awards for both 2007 and 2014. They are under regional and under the growers organization. It came up with a search followed by a search within a page: The East-Central Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers formed a strategic alliance to develop innovative technology that will help them compete in the wholesale market. Their fruit-tracker software will help growers [...]
Sources: in addition to the "niagara this week" source, here are Growing Produce [7] and Ontario Ministry of Agriculture [8] and Fruit & Vegetable Magazine [9] page 16. DeVerm (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not see CropTracker in any of the sources you provided. So, as far I can tell, it is not used by the Ontario Ministry. I do see Fruit Tacker, Fusion, and Apple Tracker. Hopefully, you understand, all this means is that these exist. Especially, this is just a little blurb [10] and merely an announcement. It shows that a couple of programs exist and that is it. Also, I did not see the awards that were awarded in any of the sources you provided. Can you provide those sources? Otherwise, as far as I can tell, no awards were received, and the AMI source is pretty much inaccurate. Because the AMI source claims Fruit Tracker came from only AMI. I have looked at Dragonfly's website and they claim Fruit Tracker is their program.
  • I did not realize I had to serve it to such high standards. Here is the link: [11] It says: "Dragonfly's cloud-based software, referred to as Crop Tracker / Fruit Tracker / Grape Tracker / Apple Tracker, has been designed with growers, packers, distributors, industry associations, and retailers in mind." DeVerm (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the awards. Here is a direct link to the 2007 award; the 2014 one can be found in a similar way: [12] DeVerm (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Niagara This Week" article is still trivial sourcing. These sources are all unremarkable according to Wikipedia standards. For example, this is very much an announcement [13], or website type press release, or advertisement on a Ministry website. This [14] indicates Apple Tracker exists - but does not speak for notability. The Fruit & Vegetable Magazine is a trade publication, so it's job is to speak highly of industry products. In other words, it is not independent reporting. These that I have just mentioned are not independently reported, significant coverage, in multiple reliable sources. These are trivial sources. To accept these, is to lower the standards of Wikipedia. And right now, it seems a number of editors are engaged in removing low grade promotional articles such as this one, that use Wikipedia as platform for advertising their insignificant products, as wonderfully expressed in this signpost article [15].
Also, it is the Ministry of Ontario's job to support business and commerce, so touting various products and giving out awards is part of its job. In other words, none of this stuff on their website is independent reporting in secondary sources. Also, none of this software is remarkable - it has NOT had a significant impact on societies and cultures in the same way that software produced by Apple Inc. or Microsoft or Oracle Corporation which produces Java (software). Also, none of this tracker software is more remarkable than other Crop management software and Farm management software on the market - to get an idea - here is whole bunch of them -->[16]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Niagara This Week is not a good source, frankly, I do not know what is. It is an article dedicated to the topic, written by the newspaper's staff, of a reasonable length and tone. The newspaper's circulation is 150k (link) which (although not huge) is plainly not trivial.
Similarly, dismissing government sources as "unreliable because COI" is beyond me. In that particular case, I think that the award is non-selective and trivial hence brings little notability, but your argument seems to be that anytime a government is talking about a company from their country it should be dismissed as non-independent coverage - and I strongly disagree with that view. TigraanClick here to contact me 10:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added sources to the article. I also agree with Tigraan that the source from the Canadian Ministry of Agriculture is WP:RS and the articles in the newspaper and the two magazines I added are as well. DeVerm (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The AMI source is not independent [17] - they have funded "Fruit Tracker" and this is their publication. Also, it is a trivial source. This source: [18] contains only passing mention of "Fruit Tracker" and does not qualify as significant coverage. Also, the previous awards mentioned are trivial and not notable awards, but there has yet to be proof that any of items mentioned, Fruit Tracker, Crop Tracker, Apple Tracker and so on have received any trivial award from the Ministry. There are examples of notable awards on Wikipedia (for comparison) if you wished to take a look around. The Wikipedia article that we are discussing is unreliable anyway because it is not clear which unremarkable software program this article is about. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This source is an announcement and only mentions "Apple Tracker" in a blurb so this does not qualify as significant coverage. The article in this source ("issue_id":251654,"page":16}}) pertaining to "Fruit Tracker" ( a different tracker) is an announcement with how to instructions. This does not qualify for significant coverage, see :WP:CORPDEPTH. All the sources put together do not create significant coverage for the above stated reasons. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I listed a direct link to the 2007 award above after you asked for it the first time. The 2014 award isn't even mentioned in the article but you can find that starting from the 2007 one. It also seems that you are rejecting the sources, while the consensus in this AfD is that the sources are good. Your insistence on Fruit Tracker, Apple Tracker, Grape Tracker etc. being different products and thus rejecting notability and sources on those grounds is puzzling but not shared by consensus. DeVerm (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fruittracker / Croptracker / Grapetracker / Appletracker ARE different products. They are definitely not the same. For one, they have different websites. Second, they have separate apps (Apple and Android) for each of them. I would like to see solid evidence which shows that they are all the same product. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl94 -- These are not the same product, so this discussion has devolved into some confusion. So I really can't tell what this article is about. And for me, it is another reason to delete this article. Also, none of these are noteworthy - they have not received significant coverage by any standard or measurement. And, just because an editor in this discussion wants to claim trivial coverage and trivial non-notable awards are sufficient - does not mean they are. They fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Don't take my word for it - check it out for yourself. These are non-notable and ordinary software programs - in other words, none of these tracker software programs are more remarkable than other crop and farm management software on the market - to get an idea - here is whole bunch of them ----> [19]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DeVerm --- The awards are trivial, which also means they are not notable and have not reached a level notoriety so that this article merits inclusion on this encyclopedia. And that is what this is - an encyclopedia - that means we have high standards. Also, I would appreciate it if you stop claiming consensus. There is you and one other who are trying to override policies and guidelines on wp:n, wp:v (verifiablity), and wp:rs. And, I am only seeing you writing anything while claiming to speak for the other. Additionally, there is also one other editor - User:MSJapan - who Ivoted for "Delete" and gave a rationale. Also even if you did have a consensus, it does not override guidelines and policies. Just because you have an opinion that contradicts Wikipedia standards does not mean your opinion becomes the new Wikipedia or its new standards. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: Here is the link I posted earlier that says this is all the same software: [20]. DeVerm (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nobody has made any opinions known on their views as to the notability of the subject since the last relist. @Lemongirl942: Have you made your decision yet? Other new contributors to the debate (and new thoughts by existing ones) are also encouraged. KaisaL (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at a lot of stuff and unfortunately I have to conclude the product is not notable. First, all 4 of them are different products. They have separate websites and even separate apps. The scope of this article is one particular product called Croptracker.
  1. I first tried to look at the popularity of all 4 softwares. Here are the number of installs on Google play Croptracker - (5-10), Fruit tracker - (50-100), Apple tracker (5-10), Grape Tracker (5-10). An install of less than 100 is very very less. I check out iTunes as well where it says "We have not received enough ratings to display an average for the current version of this application." This typically indicates very low number of users using the software. Essentially, this software is not popular.
  2. This software was commissioned by the ministry along with a crop growers association. Hence, references such as these [21], [22] are not independent. This [23] award was given by the ministry itself...to an app it commissioned. This [24] seems to be an article involving a person who is selling this software? This [25] is probably the only independent review I found but it is not enough.
Considering the low popularity of the software and the dearth of sources, I think this can be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Thank you for your research Lemongirl. I agree with you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Banned sockHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Let me join the ranks thanking Lemongirl942 for the time and effort put into this. I can see the points made and wonder what consensus there is for the different points of view. I am very much a supporter of consensus-based policies so may have to change my position on this article if consensus points to that; it is not my intention to frustrate this process in any way. Here are the points we may be able to clear up:
  1. One product or multiple products. According to a growing number of editors, this must be viewed as multiple products for reasons stated above. I have viewed these as one product and partly based my opinion on that. I merely pointed to the website that declares them being the same, while others point to different naming and separate apps. I agree on that being different of-course but does that make it a different product? If a person does an official name change, does that make this a different person? The passport changes so yes versus it is still the same person just a different label. How do most view this? If we, by consensus, view this as separate products and we must assess this article as for croptracker only, then I used a wrong basis for my assessment and must change my !vote.
  2. Popularity. Let's assume there are 130 users of the Android app. I agree, this is very little. But this being a web-based platform, there will also be many users on Apple tablets/phones and then again many more on PC's. So let's pull the figure from the maker themselves: [26] mentions "thousands of growers worldwide". Let us take a number of 2,000 total growers who use this. That still does not sound like much to me, but how many growers are there, i.e. what market penetration in percentage are we talking about? If there would be a software program in use by only 130 users but those users would be governments of which we only have 140, then would we call that popular or not? If we are talking about a small percentage of growers using this software then that changes my mind as well. In fact, this popularity factor is the most important one I think.
  3. Conflict of interest. As the Canadian government subsidized the development of this software, does that make a government award WP:COI? Does that make government sources primary sources? There seem to be strong differences of opinion on this. If a government decides to stimulate an industry, does this make them an entity that has an interest and thus all government sources become COI? How about paying tax, does that make the government something like a bond-or stock-holder who is paid dividends? If community consensus is that this is indeed COI then we must dismiss these sources which leaves us with one newspaper source and one magazine source and that, I agree, is not enough. Same for the awards. Did they get the award because they received a subsidy from that same government? DeVerm (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the comment.
  1. I personally see it as a different software - perhaps running on a platform created by the same company. But as a software, this is an individual one. That said, my analysis was done for all the 4 softwares and I think even if I combined them, it wouldn't really be notable.
  2. Popularity is an important aspect I look at. For this, I try to find third party sources and iTunes/Google Play are reliable in this sense. I tend not to use number provided by the company itself, particularly in case of notability. This is because we have no means of verifying it. The point about the percentage of market penetration and the use of a web interface is interesting. Yes, there may be a possibility that the web interface has more users, but we cannot verify that. The percentage of market share is interesting - but again we have no data. Another factor that pushed me towards a delete was the geo scope of the software. I realised that the scope is limited to growers in Canada. An app specifically about growers in Canada has a limited scope in my opinion. I also had a look at their social media channels (Facebook page 88 likes) and didn't see much interactions. All of this convinced me that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON.
  3. As for sources, this is interesting. In cases of organisations, trade journals are usually not accepted for the purpose of showing WP:CORPDEPTH. This is mostly because they focus on a narrow area (for the same reason why local sources are usually not used for GNG purposes). Over here, one of the magazines [27] was something similar to a trade journal, although I accepted it as it seemed independent. However, I am not willing to consider the government sources here as they tend to be like press releases or borderline promotional. As in all cases, independent reviews would have helped. But we simply do not have these over here. Of course, it doesn't mean all government sources have a COI, but in this case the specific department which explicitly commissioned the software clearly has a COI here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how you come to your delete !vote. Our difference of opinion is about the arguments made and thus lead to different votes. I see it as the same software, just re-branded for the different customer groups. It is not the first time I see the same thing with different (brand) name labels. That label does not make it a different product for me, while I recognize that for others it does.
How can one use Google Play to find the number of customers and not the data from the manufacturer? In my view, you can only do such a thing for software products that only work on the Android platform. Example: how many MS Windows users do you find on Google Play? Where do the number of their users come from? There are many apps that are popular on iOS but not on Android... the number of Android users has little value in determining the number of users for apps that are not dedicated to Android. Also, I have found users in the USA and New Zealand as well as in Canada, so the limited scope of Canada-only can't be correct.
For government sources, I see it that every government promotes the business sectors that their country plays a significant role on the world market for and I do not see that as a conflict of interest which invalidates their sources. I think government sources are always independent and the guidelines and essays seem to confirm that. I may have missed something but I just re-read most again and don't think so. Even government agencies are considered independent so I can only assume that ministries are as well
I still do not see enough reason to blank the content of this article and thus remain my keep !vote. DeVerm (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I do not see how we can have an article when there is not even agreement about what the product actually is and just what it is that the references refer to? I think this fails the basic test of WP:Verifiability. , DGG ( talk ) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article stands. I too am totally confused by what the product/s actually is/are according to the article. The text refers to one thing and the references refer to others. If the software is a platform supporting multiple applications tailored to different crop types then it should say so. On all accounts currently fails verifiability - references should refer to and support concepts and terminology in the article. (Salvage: maybe there should / could be an article about Dragonfly (software developer) which produces all of these products, and hence might also be more notable than just one of its products ?) Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Croptracker&oldid=1078460633"