Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtTask (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 was delete, because, while a product it makes may be notable, the company is not, and efforts to prove its notability have failed consistently. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AtTask
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created and now maintained by several WP:SPA accounts with no other edits other than related to "AtTask". Was speedied twice under WP:CSD. Has a few links but they seem to be merely self published or trivial coverage and mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Refernces are only press releases and product reviews. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep After the first debate, it was decided that AtTask is a legitimate corporation per the WP:CORP criterion. The sentences I added about AtTask's integration features have been removed. Also, with respect to notability, I've found a few more independent references that cover AtTask in-depth: , , , and . Furthermore, the references for Wikipedia articles for project management tools such as Vpmi, 24sevenoffice, and ProjectInsight seem even more secondary and trivial.Vpdjuric (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric — vpdjuric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is fair. I do think, though, that the arguments for notability are valid. Vpdjuric (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric
 * I see you only started contributing on 4 December 2007. Try to keep you comments on this page, rather than the talk pages of the participants here. You are enthusiastic which is good, however all you contributions are related to AtTask, may I ask whats your relationship is with this software company?--Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. I work for a company that has a business relationship with AtTask and a couple of other project management software companies, so this can certainly be perceived as a conflict of interest. On the other hand, I have been researching project management software for over a year, I have used a number of project management tools during this period, and I have gained a good amount of expertise in the field. I think that my knowledge about project management software is valuable and could be used in a way that advances the aims of Wikipedia. I would also like to note that I did not create the article on AtTask. The AtTask article was created in February, and I have only made a few minor edits. Because of my COI, I am more than happy to delete all of the changes I have made, or consult another editor or administrator about them. What would you recommend?Vpdjuric (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric
 * Delete The product may be notable, the CEO may be notable, but the company is not. I have spent the last half hour going around each source presented so far to see what they actually contain. All either lead back to a press release or deal with the product or CEO. The software product has been reviewed by the rev2 and eWeek sources. SoftwareCEO and CIO deal with Scott Johnson (the CEO). The rest are based off of press releases. Nothing that truly deals with the company itself has been put forth to establish notability. At this point, the article needs a reboot to discuss the product itself and an article on Scott Johnson can be written using the CIO/softwareCEO sources. Until some reliable source deals with At Task itself and not the product or actions of its CEO, an article about the company is not right for Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not even sure how this survived the first time around.  spryde |  talk  15:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fair viewpoint. I can write an article about the product to replace the one about the company and propose it on the talk page. Vpdjuric (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)vpdjuric


 * Delete, per nomination and per Spryde's review of the sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, To address the issue of notable, AtTask was positioned in Gartner's magic Quadrant in 2007: http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/primavera/149082.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scjnsn (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)  — Scjnsn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment After checking that reference, it is a passing mention/trivial coverage. The focus of the piece is not on AtTask the company.  spryde |  talk  18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. I am working on re-writing the article to be about @Task the software rather than AtTask the company. While AtTask the company may fail WP:NOTABILITY, the software has been written about extensively in secondary independent sources and is a well-known project management software tool. I will post the proposal for the new article on the talk page shortly.Vpdjuric (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted my draft/proposal for the new article about @task (the software) on my user page. I used the Vpmi article as a model for this one. I'd love to get everyone's feedback.Vpdjuric (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.