Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadmap (software)

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. Userfication may be requested if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roadmap (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This software appears to fail the notability criteria WP:GNG. The author has added external links a blog and to "ganthead.com," neither of which in my opinion qualify as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A quick Google search reveals nothing better. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the article's Discussion page, where a conversation with admins on the subject of Notability has already taken place. Thank you. -Dave.j.clausen (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion page prior to nominating this article for deletion; what happened there was a discussion on whether the article was insignificant enough to be speedily deleted. The result was that no, the article was better brought to AfD, which is where we are. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The sources offered are all primary or unreliable blogs. I do applaud all entrepreneurs who take it upon themselves to create products. But as a rule of thumb, what you need to satisfy notability requirements here is a couple decent articles about the product in print sources with some editorial control. This article does not have that. And with such a generic product name, if the Co-Founder & CTO, who's been heavily involved in creating the page, doesn't know of any coverage, I doubt both that it exists and / or that if it did, any of us could find it. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm the Co-Founder and CEO of Roadmap. I wanted to note that the article in Gantthead is significant because it is a highly focused publisher of content that maps directly to the service Roadmap provides (project portfolio management). The Gantthead editor has asked us to do a follow-on interview. Roadmap was also featured in ThisWeekInStartups. Is an article in a print source a requirement? Seems like a very high (and perhaps unusual) bar. Mobilebking (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no specific requirement that sources offered to establish notability must be print sources; I gave just my personal rule of thumb. The point is that you will need some reliable sources and that does mean something more than blogs. The usual guerrilla marketing way of getting that coverage is to pester the journalists who cover this segment that your product is worth a review. If you can convince them it's notable, that's how you'll convince us. Good luck. Separately, you appear to be posting as both User:Mobilebking and User:Dave.j.clausen. That's a no-no. Please see WP:MULTIPLE. Msnicki (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm Bill King, not Dave Clausen. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to demonstrate that I'm not Dave other than to have you send an email to bking at ppmroadmap dot com so I can reply. Back to gist of your response, I understand the point you're making but the definition of what's a reliable source is subjective. How is Gantthead, a respected publication for project managers and the people who management them, any different than a blurb on TechCrunch? Anyway, it is what it is and I'm not looking for flame war with The (wiki)Man. Thanks for taking the time to respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobilebking (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misread CEO as CTO. (Maybe you guys could give yourselves titles that differ in more than one letter. :) Re: Gantthead vs. TechCrunch, I'm not sure we'd accept TechCrunch, either; they're pretty indiscriminate of what they report. I think it would take more than just a couple TechCrunch blog reports to establish notability, but that could be just me. Msnicki (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Yet more "project management" software without any claim to the sorts of significance that would make this product an encyclopedia subject. And if it's also a business startup, it's pretty axiomatic that it's not notable, even if there is a flurry of press coverage for the single event of the business being launched. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the product has been commercially available since 1/1/2010 (so really not a startup anymore). As the article's author, I'm of course biased, but there are many facets which separate the product from run-of-the-mill; and it indeed even breaks some new ground. I would like to add these points in a very factual way to the article, along with adding a visual or two. Lastly, I submit that your vote be weighted less :) given that your self-proclaimed aim is to kill the human spirit. :) Dave.j.clausen (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely the outcome will be to keep your article. You can ask that it be userfied to your own user space, where you can continue to work on it. But what it really needs isn't a better explanation of the product's wonderfullness. Notability here on Wikipedia isn't about whether a topic seems notable; it's all and only about whether people with no connection to the topic thought it was notable and said so in reliable sources. You need those sources. Msnicki (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2011 (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.