Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ActiveCollab

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveCollab

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

This article is about a web tool that fails WP:N and WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The little existing coverage is routine web coverage, mostly by non-reliable sources. The best source available is this, which says something regarding the product's encyclopedic notability. Borderline A7 speedy, as there is little to no assertion of significance. As this was deleted four times before, I want to see if there is consensus here for salting. Them From Space 16:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article is about a software that has been mentioned in various reliable web sources:

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/02/17/active-collab-announces-basecamp-project-import-tool/?fromcat=all#!sTmSF http://techcrunch.com/2006/07/06/bascamp-faces-competition-in-free-alternative/ http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2008/11/13/15-useful-project-management-tools/ http://gigaom.com/2010/09/07/self-hosting-your-project-management-tools/

It is featured in numerous project management specialized websites, just to name a few:

http://www.getapp.com/activecollab-application http://project-management.com/activecollab-software-review/ http://projectmanager.com.au/education/tools/project-management-software-review-activecollab/ http://www.testuff.com/help/activecollab/

It has been mentioned in papers published on universities:

http://books.google.rs/books?id=W4JaHY-jYHoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=activecollab&f=false

More than 10000 companies and institutions use it, including numerous universities: http://unlcms.unl.edu/information-services/new-it/unlprojects-activecollab-0 http://cepa.maxwell.syr.edu/pages/137.html http://collab.uncc.edu/public/index.php/login?re_route=homepage http://its.uiowa.edu/campus-software-program/activecollab-corporate-238

It has many more references than many other PM software tools that are featured on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FogBugz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FusionForge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall.com_(software)

With all this in mind I strongly object the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwriter (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Wiwriter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that coverage looks pretty routine, with quite a bit coming from press releases. I also don't believe any of those meet our criteria for reliable sources. Them From Space 01:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are mostly secondary, which is in accordance with the rules, don't come from press releases, they are published on reputable and relevant sites such as http://techcrunch.com/ or /thenextweb.com. Sources include .edu and . government sites. Here is an example of the later - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2605024/. Here is another reputable source - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5551012 by a researcher from University of Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Further sources include other software companies that integrated their tools with activeCollab such as https://zapier.com/zapbook/activecollab/. It seems to be more than enough and much more that dozens of project management tools already included on Wikipedia. Wiwriter (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm still not seeing any significant discussion in those sources. Just a couple of sentences in passing won't cut it. Them From Space 17:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With non enterprise software, that is not funded in Silicon Valley you cannot expect massive coverage. This is quite enough for establishing validity of the topic and every sentence in the text has a reliable source. Here is another one I found - http://en.startit.rs/activecollab-3-project-management-saas/Wiwriter (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also included one more resource from AllBusiness.com - http://www.allbusiness.com/management/change-management/3875709-1.html Wiwriter (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Several marginal sources, but mostly presence in lists and other minor coverage. Not seeing quite enough to pass GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete endlessly recycled press releases are still press releases. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2014 (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.