Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnTime


 * 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. Juliancolton (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OnTime

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Advertising for unremarkable software. Author removed my prod tag and added more advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Hello, I thought you were allowed to delete the prod tag if you believed that the delete option was not appropriate as it states in the prod tag warning (If I understand what the prod tag is)? This software has been around since 2002, and is a major player in the project management and bug tracking space.. (I have used OnTime and other similar products for years). I truly feel like this software warrants an addition to Wikipedia.  Once you review the content, I don't think you will consider it advertising, especially when they are from third party sources. I didn't pull this information from thin air. Please let me know what else I can do (I am still not done making additions, but I strongly believe that in its current state, it clearly exceeds qualifications). Thanks.  Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a side note: I didn't even mean to delete that prod tag.. I figured out that I wrote over it on accident when I edited an older page that didn't even have a tag yet (so, when I saved, it went away).. Sorry about that. :-) Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article looks like an advertisement, the software has gained several recognitions, but no real info about what the software really is. Eduemoni↑talk↓  17:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Good call Eduemoni, I just searched around and found a site that goes over the features pretty well and added a few features and made a "Features" section to help clarify what this software does. Zacharyklein (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Zacharyklein, I do not want to be rude or to judge, or to accuse someone, but are you in any way related to Axosoft and OnTime, employee, owner, fan? Because I checked out your contrib history and you have only created (and collaborated within) two article Axosoft and OnTime, which are very much related, if yes, try (as much as you can) to contribute with a Neutral Point of View, because anyone can point out how irrelevant and non-notable the article is, and how much it still looks like an advertisement. Edue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 21:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Product stub. Should be expanded not deleted. If it reads like an ad, you haven't been reading many software dev ads lately. It lists some of the product's features. If you look at other products listed at Comparison of issue-tracking systems, you will find other list entries that should be similarly deleted. To allow them to stay and remove this article treats article retention policy capriciously. We must be fair. I would mark the article as needing additional references and reviews from notable publications and keep it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Two other quick points. The first is, there's no guarantee that this is not a WP:COI. Looking at the editors focus, it seems to be centred on this product. Also, don't forget that we're not supposed to bite the newcomers. This goes to the nature of mistakes made by Zacharyklein. Clearly newbie mistakes. If the prod does succeed, which I hope it doesn't, then someone should coach the new editor in what is and isn't acceptable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a "recognition" section has been created. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Run of the mill article about back office software, a Hosted, Windows Client, and Web solution for project management and bug tracking.  References are to reviews roughly concurrent with new releases, press releases announcing version changes, and petty software industry trade awards for "Excellence & Productivity" and the like.  No indication that this product has any significant effect on history, technology, or culture. -25 notability points for calling it a "solution". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * keep I note that "back office software" is not a reason for deletion;rather, it means that there are likely to be few available sources and we should be more flexible. _ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, product has numerous third party sources cited. There's enough for an article, and it seems to meet our standards of notability. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:19, 31 March 2011 (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.