Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicflow


 * 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. All uninvolved editors agreed. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Epicflow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable software, a Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. None of the 16 used sources (2 are duplicates) qualifies as a fully independent reliable source with in-depth coverage (I'll add a detailed source review below). A possible "conflict of interest" hasn't been clarified and disclosed yet. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A more detailed review of the used sources (reference numbering as of now, may change): In short: a lot of PR activities and professional marketing, but nothing to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.
 * Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)
 * Ref #5: self-published blog site by a "PMP Professional" with unclear expertise, offers sponsored advertising and reviews
 * Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage
 * Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source
 * Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.
 * Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).
 * Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)
 * Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers
 * Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.
 * Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Updated from July, 24 by Techforcatch

Even though the references are self-published, they were approved by our customers. The references were updated by reducing the number of mentions to one.
 * Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.


 * Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)

Ref #4 is the link to the article in the group of project management professionals. Here’s the part of it, if you lack access to this group. The article shows that Flow MPM, an earlier version of Epicflow, helped Pilz Netherlands win National Business Success 2015 Award. LinkedIn members can get access to this group.https://www.dropbox.com/s/tv56mbcoantrzat/Screenshot%202017-07-24%2019.19.59.png?dl=0


 * Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage

Ref#7 is a success story, based on the benefits Epicflow’s real clients get after using the software for three months.

StartUs Magazine is an independent source. The article was autonomously written by Daniel Tanque after the Web Summit 2016, Lisbon. It does not include any advertising material, rather spreads the news about the release of a project management tool, pointing to its unique features that have not been developed before.
 * Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source.


 * Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.

Ref #9 (an article about Epicflow and MS Project) was approved by an independent editor of Project Accelerator with no costs spent for publishing.


 * Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).

The content was written independently by Finances Online expert, after crediting Epicflow with two awards without pursuing any marketing goals.


 * Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)

Refs #11 and 12 prove scientific PM expertise of our researchers - Jan Willem Tromp and Albert Ponsteen. These are publications in Procedia, a reliable scientific source with peer-reviews under the responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.


 * Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers

The article was approved by an independent editor from Project-Management.com. Our researcher’s expertise in this domain has already been shown above, as he contributed to a reliable scientific journal under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.

Ref #15 was updated.
 * Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.

Refs #16 and 17 were updated.
 * Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Techforcatch (talk • contribs)


 * . Thank you for your detailed response, but it seems we have vastly differing views on these sources, and on what constitutes an independent reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. Anyway, other uninvolved editors will offer additional feedback, so we don't have to start a lengthy 1v1 discussion just now. Aside from this article-related disagreement, please make sure to disclose your apparent "conflict of interest" (see your user talkpage for more information). You'll find the appropriate templates to add at WP:DISCLOSE (unpaid COI) or WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE (paid COI). Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It is entirely obvious that the article has been chiefly written by an editor with a conflict of interest and that many of the sources are bunk. Could the post-relist discussion please determine if there are any good sources at all?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - A few more details regarding the objections against deletion, although comments by other uninvolved editors would obviously be more useful:
 * Ref #8: Startus Magazine is a trade magazine with limited objectivity and no journalistic distance to their topics (see also their about page.
 * Ref #9: Whether the article was placed cost-free or for a fee is irrelevant. The content is not independently written and serves a clear self-promotional purpose.
 * Ref #10: Here is the source's application page where companies can conveniently suggest their own products and specify their estimated advertising budget. Note the 4 "advantages" on top - pure marketing, and not a source of reliable independent information.
 * While some of the sources (i.e. of the involved researchers) are possibly reliable, none of the given sources are independent and reliable. Such affiliated sources may be used to source uncontroversial content (with some caution), but they don't establish notability per WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hi. First, I must mention that the analysis of GermanJoe is a notability analysis, not a merit analysis for each source. What I mean is, citation #1 (which the same as #2 and #3) is good enough for the purpose it is serving: Giving a simple launch date. However, the whole fate of the article hinges on citations #11 through #15, which does not correspond to our requirements set forth by WP:NPOV and WP:N. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - One included ref seems to work towards demonstrating notability. The requirement is for multiple such references. I was unable to find any more like this. I am prepared to change my !vote if that situation changes. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , just for clarity: Jan Willem Tromp is working for GLOW Management (one of the developing companies). He is listed as a "Managing Partner" on Linkedin, and several times in central roles on the company's website. His own articles clearly fail the "independent" requirement to establish notability. I am not assessing "reliability" one way or the other, but sources need to meet both criteria at once per WP:GNG. GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Grudgingly - I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but while at first glance I thought there were a lot of scholarly sources for this, it turns out the name is used for different things and the "other" Epicflow" is really well represented, but not this one. Doesn't appear to be notable in sources I could find. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2017 (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.