Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bookmap

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bookmap

Originally proded but tag removed by creator of the article Paullakso (talk · contribs) whose sole edits are to this article. The product in question is a learning tool sold on the web. The Google search for "bookmap + learning" provides 154 unique non-wiki hits although a quick stroll through them will convince anyone that most of these hits are unrelated to that product. Perhaps more telling is the search for "Brain-Oriented Organized Knowledge Map" (which "bookmap" stands for according to the article. This generates 15 hits, including two wikipedia, three forum posts and two from the product's website. Plainly and simly fails WP:CORP. Pascal.Tesson 20:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the second google search turns up a little more than that. There is a PDF file reporting from Dutch Ministry of Education studying the use of this learning tool. There's a bunch of entries that appear to be in Dutch which I am not able to read and evaluate. This learning tool may be locally notable in the Netherlands, but since I can't read Dutch, I can't tell. But I don't think it is a slam dunk failure of WP:CORP -- Whpq 21:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And the google search I used was this one. -- Whpq 21:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually, I should have made this clear so thanks for the comment. The article indeed refers to a study conducted by a non-profit organization of the Netherlands [1] which technically is independent from the ministry of education (although subsidized by it). It is that organization's task to undertake studies and there's no sign that this one was less routine than the others (and I say this after zipping through all 8 pages of that report). That still does not make it notable as there is no evidence that there was a follow-up since that 2003 study. Surely if this New Jersey based company had a hot product, you would actually have this reflected on their website [2]. Also I went back to your Google search and looked at the dutch pages (I know enough german to at least get a jist of the content. They are mentions in passing that this SLO organization is conducting a study on that product. In fact, most pages have the very same paragprah on the subject which means it was probably a press release or something of that sort. Pascal.Tesson 21:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. My Alt Account 22:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No notability asserted, no reliable sources cited other than a single small study. Google search for "bookmap 'horn clause logic'" turns up only their site and Wikipedia. There are no incoming links to their home page. Alexa has no ranking data for them. Hopefully the'll become notable and broadly covered, but I see no evidence of that yet. William Pietri 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. :) Dlohcierekim 01:39, 14 September 2006 (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.