Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy projects


 * 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. While this article would qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD since it appears to have been re-created after a similar article was deleted just a few months ago (Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET (2nd nomination), I note that the extensive coverage in the Giganom and CBS News would be sufficient to pass WP:CORP. Most of the other sources are abysmal (trivial mentions, promotional, or company blurbs) and add no value whatsoever. Although the apparent SPA activity is disturbing, I nevertheless commend them for submitting valid arguments rather than simply registering a vote.

Disclaimer: I am a certified PMP myself, but I have no interest in this or any other project management product. I understand that this closure may be controversial and I do not object to being overturned at WP:DRV if someone deems it appropriate to have this closure reviewed there. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Easy projects
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Article has links which are primarily from non-reputable sources. Also 3/4 of the references in this article contain nothing that the article actually says. Removing references would likely result in this article falling under G11 as advertising. Keystoner idin (speak) 21:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I do realize that I nominated this article quite fast, but the misleading of links presents this as a possible non-notable company. Keystoner  idin (speak) 21:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Check sources - The article is well sourced. The blurb at says that the FBI actually bought this company? Most of the references I've never even heard of. If the sources are good, then its a keep from me. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * KEEP – Each reference correlates to specific data taken from the referenced source and used in the article text.  Most of the reference titles are business software trade press that appear to be reputable sources. Celtechm (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC) (Article Author)
 * Comment: Citation 4 makes no mention of Saas,Citation 5 makes no indication of Gannt Charts,There is no Citation for the original release date, although it is said to be 2004. Seems that bit's and pieces of information were stripped from the sources. Seems like this could be a MAJOR violation of references. Keystoner  idin (speak) 01:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment These are fair points for clarification. To elaborate: Citation 4 is an article published in 2009 before the terminology "SaaS" was widespread, so it does not use that acronym. Instead the article mentions a delivery mechanism of "Hosted" software and goes on to state that "You can also opt to install EasyProjects.net’s software on your own servers". The wording in the Wiki article is meant to make this clear for readers by integrating current terminology and linking to an existing Wiki page that explains this mechanism. The Citation 5 source lists features as "message boards, issue and request tracking, statistics and reports, email notifications, and more." I replaced "and more" (Which sounded too 'promotional' for Wiki) with "and Gantt Charts" (which is shown in other references). I can move the reference point back 3 words if necessary. There is no citation for the original SW release date because it came from a source that I chose not to cite, probably due to unsuitable reference (Blog) or self-publish (company website or news release) reasons. Celtechm (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: the only reference in the article that can be used for determining notability is a gigaom article. Others are either completely unreliable or lack depth (or both typically). I failed to find another acceptable source in the wild (though I probably gave up too soon due to the overwhelming about of splogs on topic and fairly generic name). Overall, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources to validate this article's inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep since I'm not sure that the sources have been parsed carefully. There are bad sources there, but there's also the gigaom, the BNET article, and a cursory search also came up with this TechVibes piece. It just needs a little more work, but it almost certainly meets WP:CORP. Per WP:BURDEN: It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. This isn't BLP. Arghonaut (talk) 17:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note User:Arghonaut is a brand new account and has few other minor contributions to Wikipedia, leading to the possibility that they are a WP:SPA and in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is just a re-list of an article that has been previously deleted in the past a number of times, under the name Easy Projects .NET. Previous nominations all resulted in deletion citing lack of notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT — LoudHowie —Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note / Question LoudHowie appears to have conflict of interest. Minor edit history... No edits since 2009 and then 7 AFD nominations for project management SW pages in one day in 2012. Possible Sockpuppet? Celtechm (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't see the content of previous article(s), so I can't discuss their content or references. I did note that the 2009 AFD was closed as "No Consensus" and only the 2012 was closed for deletion. It does appear, from the commentary in the 2012 deletion discussion log, that the topic is this same SW, but based on the comments in the AFD inputs, there must have been a very different set of references. All that aside, taking This article on its own merits, I believe the references here (especially FBI, Gigaom, VentureBeat (of which I only listed one of many pages), PM Network, and CBS) prove notability. Celtechm (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIR, the three references in previous article were BNET, gigaom and killerstartup from this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: An article that has been deleted for lack of notability does not preclude the creation of another page about the same topic if the current sources are relevant and notable. I haven't studied this software in depth but just going through WP:NSOFT I see that simply saying " "non notable" and "unreferenced" is not a valid criteria for deletion." I went through the resources suggested by WP:NSOFT and Easy Projects comes up in several books (via Google Books) like "42 Rules for Successful Collaboration", "Managing for Dummies" , and "The Complete Guide to Project Management for New Managers and Manager Assistants" , as well as a review published by the FBI showing that they are using this product for one of their units and planning to adopt it for another one. Additionally, Easy Projects comes up in 16 results from Google Scholar including a US patent application. Finally, when it comes to project management software, as a project manager I can tell you that sources like the PM Network Magazine (biggest publication for the industry), GigaOm and CBS News are quite notable sources. The article may need better referencing but given the sources out there, I think there is enough to work with to bring it up to the standards of Wikipedia. Maybe instead of pure deletion nominations, we can give the page creator some constructive criticism? --Tyrea (talk) 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Tyrea (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Trivial mentions and patent applications (as well as already acquired patents) don't help with notability. CBS severely lacks depth: by no standard it can be called "significant coverage" for a complex web application. Given the size of industry, I doubt that there was any plan to implement project manager that wasn't covered in PM Network Magazine, but Wikipedia is not a directory. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Tyrea has no other contributions to Wikipedia, leading to the possibility that they are a WP:SPA and in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are about 140 PM software titles in Wikipedia alone, per Comparison_of_project-management_software. Authors have 100s of SW titles they can write about for any article on PM SW. With this fragmentation of the market, it means that any meaningful coverage of a title in RS (such as those referenced here) is (in my opinion) significant. Celtechm (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Celtechm is the original author of the article in question, possibility of WP:CONFLICT, WP:SELFPROMOTE or on behalf of client. -- LoudHoward (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I can admit to being involved with Easy Projects, however briefly. I wasn't sure if people who know Easy Projects in real life were allowed to chime in with this discussion, so I figured, given the forces at play like LoudHoward, a product as established as Easy Projects in the project management industry deserved a bit more support. I now see that I have made a mistake as per the relatively complex rules of Wikipedia editing, which are new to me, and for that I apologize. Having said that, I would be very happy if LoudHowie would elaborate on his agenda as well, since his account clearly comes across as a WP:SPA with the goal of keeping new project management software off Wikipedia. See here his comments from six months ago for Apollo and GlassCubes both of which are legitimate products in the industry. A simple Google search of his username also reveals this page, which shows further evidence of his deliberate pursuit of project management software articles. After six months of inactivity, he comes back to go after another project management software. Could there be a WP:CONFLICT in there? --Tyrea (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know LoudHoward's agenda, but my certainly includes keeping project management web services off Wikipedia, as respective articles nearly unanimously violate WP:N and WP:NOT. (Though my agenda mentions the special exceptions for sufficiently referenced articles, having at least snowball's chance in hell). — — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when did AfD turn into personal attacks? WP:AFDEQ All I did was highlight a few facts for those editors who are also looking to contribute to this discussion. It's fine if you are involved with the software in question, that's not the issue here. I was simply pointing that fact out as a possibility because it is a driver in justifying your reasoning. You should have disclosed your vested interest in this article as per WP:DISCUSSAFD. As for myself, yes I am a PMP Project Manager and have been for the past 6 years. I am not affiliated with any product, but I do have an interest in following software and PM articles on Wikipedia. I make contributions when I have free time, but this discussion is not a place to attack my contributions to Wikipedia simply because you are not happy with the fact that I mentioned that some editors in this AfD might be WP:SPA. I have made all of the points I wanted to make in this discussion in regards to the AfD. --LoudHoward (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2012 (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.