Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjExec


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

ProjExec

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another project management tool, does not seem to meet WP:CORP, WP:MILL, or even WP:GNG. Created by an SPA, OSbornarfcontribs. 22:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC) (Note: this users image contributions should be examined as well; they are marked as public domain, but they are obviously promotional or otherwise screenshots of ProjExec, and it is unclear whether this editor has the rights to release them under this license. - I understand screenshots are copyrighted?) OSbornarfcontribs. 23:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- OSbornarfcontribs. 23:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- OSbornarfcontribs. 23:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please be patient with me, as I'm new to this. I submitted this page in direct response to the requirement on the Comparison of project management software page that the product reference be a wikipedia page. I utilized one of the other pages for the another project management software (basecamp) as a template for what should go on this page. If ours is not appropriate, then I'm not sure why the other 100 or so pages listed on that comparison page are different. Can you give me guidance as to how I need to modify this page in order to mage it as acceptable as the other PM tools?

As far as the images, I marked them similarly to how I saw other companies' screenshots marked. I will be happy to modify them to make the licensing more appropriate.

As far as the Trilog Group page, we are simply providing the same level of information that our competitors are on their wikipedia pages. I would like to bring our page in line with the wikipedia guidelines. In reading your comments, I believe that the Trilog Group does meet WP:CORP, do I document that simply with links to new articles regarding trilog group and its awards from sources like trade journals, and IBM itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftripp (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also unambiguous advertising, written in sales patter: ProjExec offers a full project management solution online, with Gantt Charts, Resource Allocation, to-do lists, wiki-style web-based text documents, milestone management, file sharing, time tracking, and a messaging system.  The "project management" list is indeed an Augean stables, and appears to be another of those fields where every bit player imagines their business an encyclopedia subject; but the  existence of other articles, even about "your competitors", does not entitle your own business or product to inclusion. Referring to them as "comeptitors" suggests conflict of interest. Most trade journals and awards have too limited an audience to confer notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the comments. I have removed the sales patter, and made the statements factual. I will add additional external sources of notability. User:jftripp  —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm kind of at a loss. I was certainly surprised to find blue links for all of the project management software described on that page. However I, in good faith, decided to attempt to create a reasonable page with little marketing speak (obviously I failed), in order to put ProjExec in the list. While I certainly agree that an exhaustive list of PM tools is not required on Wikipedia, based upon the list, ProjExec is certainly more notable than a large number of those listed. It has hundreds of customers with thousands of seats, and is used by some of the largest companies in the world. So, while in some sense I appeal to existence of other articles it is not simply that. It is that ProjExec is more notable than what already exists, so in order to be equitable, it should be included.


 * So, the argument is that ProjExec is the most awarded IBM partner solution ever. It is used by literally thousands of people, and hundreds of companies. It is produced by the company that invented IBM's new collaborative development product (although that information is currently removed from the Trilog Group page.


 * Additionally, I apologize for using the term "our competitors", but I cannot believe that the majority of these pages on the PM tools and their associated companies are coming from dis-interested parties. I personally would support the decision to remove all of these pages, and just have a list page with external links. Regardless, if the Comparison of project management software page exists, and it includes non-notable software, then notable software like ProjExec should be included. I will add the external links to prove notability, and provide additional evidence of notability in the next day. Jftripp (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no significant independent coverage in reliable sources about this project management product. Press releases abound though. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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.