Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projecturf (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 no consensus. after a relisting, I do not see consensus on the sufficiency of the sources DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Projecturf (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)
No indication this software has lasting notability. Author contested prod.
What few sources I found from a search of the name were just routine coverage in a very saturated field of products. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the articles talk page:
"If you conduct the same search for Basecamp, you get the same results. As someone who used Wikipedia to sift through a lot of really awful Project Management software in an effort to find an alternative to Basecamp, I created this page because I found the project management software pages linked from the list very useful. In terms of notablity, Projecturf is one of the more notable pieces of software. I agree that there is a lot of saturation, but looking at the list of project management software on Wikipedia, I see A LOT of items that probably should be deleted (there is a lot of dead, obscure, and lesss notable items listed). I also feel very strongly that the Projecturf entry is not one, and ever bit as notable as Basecamp, Apollo, WunderKit, MS Project, and OmniPlan. Veraxus (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Veraxus"[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I couldn't find a single review, article, or book mention. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Easily found several reviews, mentions, and articles from top sources and there are plenty of them. ReadWriteWeb Review. GigaOM Review. Appstorm Projecturf Overview. Mpearson65 (talk) Mpearson65 07:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — Mpearson65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Those are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not only reliable sources, but some of the top sources on the subject. These comments / arguments for deleting this page clearly hold no ground. Mpearson65 23:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Gigaom is a Wordpress blog. The About page of ReadWriteWeb says that it is a blog. On Appstorm, people can submit an app to be reviewed which means that any app can be reviewed and the About page says that it a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GigaOM and ReadWriteWeb are top web technology news sites with millions of visitors and readers and are syndicated by other top news sites such as NY Times. One of these sites alone is more than enough to provide a reliable source.Mpearson65 08:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpearson65 (talk • contribs)
- Gigaom is a Wordpress blog. The About page of ReadWriteWeb says that it is a blog. On Appstorm, people can submit an app to be reviewed which means that any app can be reviewed and the About page says that it a blog. Blogs are not reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2012 (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.