Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRISM (Project Management Software)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

PRISM (Project Management Software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable software product lacking GHIts of substance and with only PR GNEWS. Tried to merge with ARES Corporation per WP:PRODUCT, but article author insists merge is not supportable.  ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe this software has adequate notability:
 * Company Profile on Business Week -
 * http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4850491
 * Use of PRISM by NASA -
 * http://pmchallenge.gsfc.nasa.gov/Docs/2006attendee-presentations/2006presentationsCD-attendee/Sami.Jaroudi.pdf
 * Reference from International Cost Engineering Council (ICEC) -
 * http://www.icoste.org/publ.htm
 * Multiple Blogs/Review -
 * http://onlysoftwareblog.com/?p=4813
 * http://www.constructionsoftwarereview.com/learning_center/user_reviews/prism/prism-construction-management-software-review-suncor-energy-2-2
 * Multiple PR Releases -
 * http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4224621
 * http://research.tdameritrade.com/public/markets/news/story.asp?docKey=100-168p1092-1&clauses=
 * http://www.intergraph.com/products/ppm/smartplant/materials/PRISM_Project_Manager.aspx
 * If additional examples of Notability are required, I'd be more than happy to provide them. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please read WP:RS. None of these meet the criteria for reliable sources.   is a profile of the company,  is only a one line listing of the company,  was written by someone at Ares - this is hardly independent or meets the criteria to support notability, and blogs and press release do not meet the criteria in WP:RS. Notability has not been established per Wikipedia guidelines.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It indicates that the software is used by NASA, that alone should make it notable. Are you aware that NASA hires contractors? Bsanders246 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no independent sources. 2 says you, says two 17:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct me if i'm wrong, but was unable to find anywhere in independent sources that independent sources had to meet the criteria included in that article. Additionally, many of my links above qualify as a news source. I don't see any indication that a press release changes the fact. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.losalamos.com/pmi/archives/past%20meetings/past%20meetings%20archive%2005.htm - Another credible source. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reprinted press-releases, regardless of where they're published, do not qualify as news sources. Press-releases are by definition released by the company's PR or advertising department and therefore are not independent. 2 says you, says two 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please link me to a wikipedia guideline/article stating such? Thanks Bsanders246 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (from WP:GNG) "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." 2 says you, says two 17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the link. I feel like i've already made a valid arguement for notability and i'll let others discuss for the remainder of this AFD. Bsanders246 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – It would help if you could provide support by using Wikipedia guidelines to support your assertion that it is a notable product. There has been plenty of discussion in support of it not being a notable product using Wikipedia guidelines.  You really need to address this contrary arguments in order for the article to remain.   ttonyb  (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of discussion between 2, you, and I. It seems that you and 2 work together on a lot of project edits, so I would assume you have a similar thought process. Every Wikipedia Guideline states that it is a guide, not a set of rules, and that there are expections to the guidelines. So, instead of arguing that point with you, I'll wait for 3rd parties to get involved. Google/Gnews was not meant to be a "notability checker" by Wikipedia, although you use it as such. This product and company have been around for a while and i'm sure I'll be able to find notable sources in non-web format. Using Google's Book search for "prism project management", I've already been able to find ample references to PRISM in published texts. I'm sure they'll fit into WP "notability" requirements. Bsanders246 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And here you go: http://books.google.com/books?id=jygAEZIoqUsC&pg=PA346&dq=prism+project+management&hl=en&ei=u8cbTNaOGYP88AbWp5iyDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prism%20project%20management&f=false. I think PRISM having it's own section in a Project Management book is notable enough for WP's notability standerds.Bsanders246 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Feel free to add it to the article.  ttonyb  (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I already did. I'll look for a few more to add to the article in place of previous references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsanders246 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The sources cited do not meet WP criteria as reliable sources. The Business Week ref is a mere directory listing that barely mentions the product; the NASA ref appears to be material prepared by ARES and therefore a primary source (not reliable); the ICEC link is a mere listing of products and in no way indicates notability; and the rest of the links are blogs and press releases, which are not considered valid reliable sources. This article also appears to primarily promote the product, which is specifically prohibited. I strongly suspect that the original author has some sort of connection with the product and/or company, which runs afoul of conflict of interest policies. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails wp:GNG and wp:RS. The book mentioned above contains an outline of the software's capabilities, but no critique or analysis.  The other sources are press releases or Primary sources.  Dethlock99 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for critique or analysis for a source to be considered notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Although it is ironic that many of the above references are considered notable for many other articles, I'll still make the attempt to find references that meet the official notability requirement. Per WP:FAILN, I am requesting additional time to find notable references.Bsanders246 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. Such sources do not not denote notability. They may be used in conjunction with other reliable sources. But so far, none of your sources qualify as reliable. This AfD usually lasts five days, so your clock is running. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.kbproc.com/documents/SevenSuggestions.pdf - Independent Case Study using PRISM. This should be considered notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. How independent it is isn't quite clear. I'm not sure that a case study qualifies as independent coverage. By the way, you obviously have some soft of connection to this subject. What is your connection? Do you work for Ares? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is advertising, essentially devoted to extolling the virtues of the product.  Back-office software for "project management" is a crowded field, and there's no showing that this particular product has historical, technical, or cultural significance.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:41, 19 June 2010 (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.