Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software) (2nd nomination)
- 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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to oppose/support a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software), WP:DRV overturned the deletion with some concerns over the thoroughness of the debate. To see those concerns, please see this version of DRV. This debate is thus opened to give a more thorough treatment. -Splashtalk 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as advertisement. --Bugturd 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No verifiable notability info in article yet.--ragesoss 02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that apply to this stub? What in it has to do with speculation about future events? --Tsavage 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteunless properly sourced. No independent evidence has yet been offered that this meets any of our recommended inclusion criteria (see WP:CORP). Some evidence was offered during the DRV debate but it all traced back to the company's own website and press releases. This does not constitute the kind of independent, verifiable sources necessary to support an article. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I don't believe WP:CORP applies here, because this article is about software, not a company. Would you apply WP:CORP to Microsoft Project? The software exists, was one of the first and is one of the few of its kind, and this is a STUB. What's the big deal? --Tsavage 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because WP:CORP explicitly deals with both companies and products. See the section titled "Criteria for products and services". The existence of the software is not questioned. However, mere existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. The claim that this product is either "one of the first" or "one of the few" of anything remains unsourced and unverified through any citation except sources which were traced back to the company itself. I'm going to stick to our policy that the article must be built from and supported by independent sources. As I said during the DRV discussion, this application does not show up in any of the independent journals or reviewers that would be expected to cover such software. For example, neither Gartner Group nor Forrester Research have any listing for them. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, you're taking that part of WP:CORP out of context, or at least interpreting the guideline in an arbitrary way (which is, of course, your prerogative). First: Do you mean that all products must first appear under their company names, until such time as that company article gets too big? If Projectplace was sold to We Now Own Project Place LLC of Phoenix, Arizona, would that become the primary article title (IOW, in this case, it makes sense to make the software the primary title)? Second: Are you suggesting that all articles containing uncited claims, like "one of the first", be submitted to AfD (isn't developing sources and ironing out routine editoral questions properly part of the basic WP editing process, with Talk page)? (Also, you refer to Gartner Group and Forrester Research. They are big "brands" in online market research, but do they operate equally in Europe where this product's base seems to be, and, how entirely reliable are they as sources? In the 1990s, practically all of their for-hire, research-based dotCom marketing advice was subsequently proven to be absolutely wrong.) It really seems to me, with this second AfD nom, the intent of the objectors so far is to pound this stub into the ground unless it meets WP:FA standards. --Tsavage 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced claims must be substantiated or they must be removed from the article. The question is whether, after removing all the unsourced claims, there will be anything left of the article. So far, no cites have been provided that trace to anything other than company literature. As to Gartner and Forrester, yes, they do have excellent coverage in Europe and yes they are generally reliable sources. (I would dispute your allegation about .com marketing advice but even if true, they were hardly alone in the .com bust.) Regardless, they are independent sources. If you have a different independent source that you prefer, please present it. I used them only as examples. This stub does not have to reach Featured Article standards but it does have to meet minimum WP:V standards. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a lot of argument over trying to rekill a stub. There should be little doubt now that this is a worthy stub, so what is the point? You may dispute the ASP information, but it's kind of obvious and simply waiting for a source (like many other WP articles) -- on that point of "notability", are you arguing that Projectplace wasn't launched in 1998 (the ___domain name was registered 12-May-1998), or that there were many, many other commercial ASPs at the time? In any case, I've added a new section, with a reference. Is that still insufficient? --Tsavage 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's now a citation for "one of the first". Hopefully, Bloor Research meets the research and analysis credibility standard of Gartner and Forrester... --Tsavage 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your objections seem to have been satisfied. The "notability claim" of being a pioneer in Web applications is sourced -- is that source not good enough? The software won a European Union best practices award. It was selected as the development environment for a university-level teaching method that has been adopted. All of that is cited. What next? --Tsavage 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced claims must be substantiated or they must be removed from the article. The question is whether, after removing all the unsourced claims, there will be anything left of the article. So far, no cites have been provided that trace to anything other than company literature. As to Gartner and Forrester, yes, they do have excellent coverage in Europe and yes they are generally reliable sources. (I would dispute your allegation about .com marketing advice but even if true, they were hardly alone in the .com bust.) Regardless, they are independent sources. If you have a different independent source that you prefer, please present it. I used them only as examples. This stub does not have to reach Featured Article standards but it does have to meet minimum WP:V standards. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, you're taking that part of WP:CORP out of context, or at least interpreting the guideline in an arbitrary way (which is, of course, your prerogative). First: Do you mean that all products must first appear under their company names, until such time as that company article gets too big? If Projectplace was sold to We Now Own Project Place LLC of Phoenix, Arizona, would that become the primary article title (IOW, in this case, it makes sense to make the software the primary title)? Second: Are you suggesting that all articles containing uncited claims, like "one of the first", be submitted to AfD (isn't developing sources and ironing out routine editoral questions properly part of the basic WP editing process, with Talk page)? (Also, you refer to Gartner Group and Forrester Research. They are big "brands" in online market research, but do they operate equally in Europe where this product's base seems to be, and, how entirely reliable are they as sources? In the 1990s, practically all of their for-hire, research-based dotCom marketing advice was subsequently proven to be absolutely wrong.) It really seems to me, with this second AfD nom, the intent of the objectors so far is to pound this stub into the ground unless it meets WP:FA standards. --Tsavage 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because WP:CORP explicitly deals with both companies and products. See the section titled "Criteria for products and services". The existence of the software is not questioned. However, mere existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. The claim that this product is either "one of the first" or "one of the few" of anything remains unsourced and unverified through any citation except sources which were traced back to the company itself. I'm going to stick to our policy that the article must be built from and supported by independent sources. As I said during the DRV discussion, this application does not show up in any of the independent journals or reviewers that would be expected to cover such software. For example, neither Gartner Group nor Forrester Research have any listing for them. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to abstain. Right now, the article hinges on a single independent cite. Bloor Research does show up as an independent research entity. From the evidence I've found, no, they do not rise to the level of Gartner or Forrester but Bloor is not the topic of this discussion. I still think this company is too small to meet my personal standards for inclusion (total revenues in 2004 of approx $6 million and only 34 employees) and that their product is only marginally innovative but the article no longer violates WP:V. I'll give this the benefit of doubt for a while. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe WP:CORP applies here, because this article is about software, not a company. Would you apply WP:CORP to Microsoft Project? The software exists, was one of the first and is one of the few of its kind, and this is a STUB. What's the big deal? --Tsavage 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See CNBC documentaries on this company, see official anual results, see advertising in Nordic region (IDG), Benelux (NRC Handelsblad), Germany (Systems, Cebit, print) and the UK. See the actual service if you don't believe the limited information in the article. The features and info is something I experienced myself. It's verifyable because everyone can actually contact this company and use the service! Has any of the above "no evidence" people actaully spent any time on investigating this or are you guys just claiming something for the sake of?
- Keep. It is a well known company in Norway and Sweden. --Sleepyhead 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough for CNBC Europe. Randomgenius 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I looked around during the previous DR, and found sufficient material apart from the company web site to indicate that it as notable enough company, and a significant competitor in its field of collaboration software. In addition, the article is software, so I don't see how WP:CORP exactly applies, are we to include only products from companies that meet WP:CORP guidelines? It may be a little uglier than most, but a stub is a stub... To call it advertising and demand references is excessive. (I'll also clean up the stub to make it more stubby.) In fact, looking at their logo just now, I remember I had a demo account way back (1999-2000 or so) along with a couple of other online collaboration services I was trying out. So, unless I'm just plain lying or delusional, yes, I am personally certain that this is a working company that's been around for a while. --Tsavage 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redelete, nothing wrong with the last AFD. Stifle 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There was everything wrong with the last AfD. No reasons for deletion (actually, there were reasons for non-deletion) in the nomination, and only two votes, again with no reasons, plus a vote from the would-be speedy-deleter who also had no reasons... --Tsavage 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made the stub...a better stub. You should take a look. Projectplace has some place in the bigger online picture, beyond just being another product, because they were one of the first Application Service Providers (ASP) (if you recall, ASP was one of the big buzz concepts in the dotCom days). --Tsavage 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: FYI, the stub now has two new sections, "In education" and "References". --Tsavage 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The "In education" section has been expanded. It's actually quite interesting... --Tsavage 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've added a "Software development" section to the stub. My point is, why kill a stub after being given reasonable evidence as in the DRV, when it can so easily be developed...? I don't get it... --Tsavage 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam at worst, non-notable at best. Catamorphism 06:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or revise because of purposed or inadvertantly strong bias. I think it should at least have a tag on it noting the questionability of the content. Perhaps this topic could be researched and revised into an unbiased article, but for now, I vote delete this article. Candybars 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Article is biased or has lots of POV" is explicitly NOT grounds for deletion per WP:DP. Put a tag on it if you like and take it up in Talk. I don't see what bias you're seeing, but the Talk page would be the place for it, no? --Tsavage 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Tsavage. This article has vastly improved over the last few days and is not only extremely interesting it addresses all concerns brought up so far. Randomgenius 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Article is biased or has lots of POV" is explicitly NOT grounds for deletion per WP:DP. Put a tag on it if you like and take it up in Talk. I don't see what bias you're seeing, but the Talk page would be the place for it, no? --Tsavage 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The standard formatting of AFD discussions is bulleted entries (indented as necessary using multiple asterisks). Please don't mix in other forms of indentation because it makes the thread much harder to read when reviewing the full list of AFD nominations. It can also make it harder for the closing admin to match your signature to your comment. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because I don't see anything that makes this company notable — it's just an advertisement for the company, even if it sounds relatively NPOV. I could come up with a sourced, neutral article for my lemonade stand too, but there wouldn't be anything notable about it. —Cleared as filed. 13:02, 4 February 2006 (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.