Talk:ProjectManager.com

yes

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved & needed history-merge. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ProjectManager.com → ProjectManager.com –
 * This is a new article submission. PamelaG52 (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not. This is a manufacturer's brochure; we don't do advertising. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do. This company is definitely notable and there are many other similar companies who are listed in Wikipedia. I have attempted to be very objective and have cited more than enough articles to show notoriety. If you disagree then please tell me how I can make this article more objective and let me know how it is that you determine which companies can be listed and which can't.  I followed all of the guidelines and would appreciate some honest input.  Thank you.  PamelaG52 November 29. 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PamelaG52 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do. I did a search on other Project Management software that might be on Wiki too and came across Basecamp (software).  I think the content of the ProjectManager.com wiki is similar to the "approved" Basecamp page, albeit with some minor tweaks to the ProjectManager.com page.  The award that was won (with external reference) should probably go down in the Product History section and perhaps the customer info should be deleted.  More hyperlinks could be provided, such as to Gantt Chart, Microsoft Project and MS Excel to add further depth.Mcoderkat (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do. As others have said, it is definetely notable and make sense having it in here. --Fossguy (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's do. Objectively, this is a very wide reaching company which more than meets notability guidelines. With a few tweaks including references and other articles (which I located in a few minutes on google) - this article should stay as all objective conditions look to have been met. Rachnzl (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Query
Rachnzl (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I had noticed the user page PamelaG52/ProjectManager.com and did a quick search for more sources... while I followed the basic structure I added a few more sources to comply with notability rules. I'm always an advocate for Kiwi things... but this is also a multi-national company used all around the world and one which I'm familiar with. Compared to some of the other project softwares, I believe this one more than qualifies to be here... but I welcome clean up advice:)