Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RationalPlan


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RationalPlan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable software product, article by SPA. None of the references listed are significant, and I was unable to find any such coverage. Haakon (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough to have an article. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 13:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with addition of some references not notable. The references mentioned are not notable themselves. Apple download page doesn't make the software notable. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 11:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The article has been written by a series of single-purpose users; one of them says he represents the product development team (source) and is now engaging each delete-commenter on their talk pages. This amounts to a conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-consumer software; links offered are only downloads or not sources of the sort that can confer notability. I proposed to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Before proceeding to change the article I'd like to have a good understanding of the problem. One suggest that article should be deleted because links are not from notable sites ("If you mentioned sites like ZDNet or Engadget that would make difference." he says). I had a look on the net and found out the product is actually listed on one of the suggested sites (please see http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1173045&tag=content;col1) and is also listed on twocows or apple. So I don't understand what "listed on notable site means ... apple/twocows are sites which I consider as notable and ZDNet (suggested by you) also found the product good enough to list it on their site. Now another note says "links offered are only downloads or not sources of the sort that can confer notability" : Please see (Top PM Software Reviews - MindView and RationalPlan Multi Project at brighthub (already listed as reference in the article) which is written by an independent ProjectManager who happened to find it again notable enough to mention it as a Top PM desktop tool ... I'll look on the net for an older article in pmi.org (which is a recognized authority in Project Management) but it might be that the article is only available for subscribers :(  The product is also ranked #4 in an independent TopTen Desktop Project Management tools (please see http://project-management-software-review.toptenreviews.com/rationalplan-multi-project-review.html or http://project-management-software-review.toptenreviews.com/index.html). So I'm afraid I might not understand your criteria ... Could you please explain (I also read notability from wik and it seems to me RationalPlan is good enough for wiki notability criteria) Thanks again 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "TopTenReviews" (another SPA article), I noticed this edit, claiming: "This site charges software authors for reviews and places the highest paying ones at the top.". If that is the case, this is not a usable reference. Haakon (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. We never paid anything to TopTenReviews to put us there ! Don't know where did you get this ... At the first stage RationalPlan was ranked #5, in the next year we got to #4; again we never ever paid anything for that. I also want to mention TopTenReviews is listed on wiki so it looks like it is a usable reference. Here is yet another (recent) proposal for a list of desktop project management tools : http://www.isoftwarereviews.com/project-management-software-reviews/  Again RationalPlan was selected ... Don't know who these guys are, etc. and trus me, we did not paid for RationalPlan to be selected there.
 * I didn't claim you paid; I found a revision comment that claimed the site takes payment for reviews. Please review what I wrote. Haakon (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: In the meantime I looked for RationalPlan at Project Management Institute (http://www.pmi.org/) The product is presented in their printed magazine(August 2008, VOLUME 22, No.8/ February 2009, VOLUME 23, No.2, pag.76) but again, I'm afraid it will only be available for subscribers (http://www.pmnetwork-digital.com/pmnetwork/200902?pg=78&search_term=rationalplan&search_term=rationalplan#pg78). Hopefully you will find at least pmi.org as a source that can confer notability 194.102.135.133 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a useful source that should be included. The fact that it is only available to paying subscribers is not ideal in my opinion, but does not detract from its validity as a reference (see FUTON bias). Haakon (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't find anything useful for confirmation of the notability at the referenced pages. Still delete. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You said on your talk page: "The sites you mentioned are not notable. If you mentioned sites like ZDNet or Engadget that would make difference". I did a search on the net and found out the product is actually listed on ZDNet: http://downloads.zdnet.com/abstract.aspx?docid=1173045&tag=content;col1. So I should understand that the site you mentioned as notable is now no longer notable ?!
 * The link in question is just a download page; the verbage there is not significant or independent (it's reused on many other pages according to Google). This is not a usable reference. Haakon (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Did some rework on the article already so hopefully you are OK with it now. Now as I always said, if apple would think the product is good enough to list it on their site, if ZDNet, twocows will do the same, if TopTenReview would rank it at #4, if pmi.org would ask us data about the product to have articles there (I can produce the emails) but you still think the product can't have a simple page on wiki ... I can't help to notice that some of you guys have also removed RationalPlan from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software so I might suspect you have an interest that RationalPlan is in now way listed on wiki (as this could maybe help your own products ?) There is simply no other logical explanation than that ... Out of the blue, a site that YOU suggested is no longer valid, out of the blue someone suggests that we paid TopTenReviews to put RationalPlan in the top (which again, is simply not true. Belive me, Microsoft did not paid for their #1 rank either :) ) ... Hopefully an independent third pary will review this debate in the end 86.126.78.101 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We all are independent third parties. There is no conspiracy; please don't assume ill faith. I also have to point out that it seems like there are now two of you representing the company in this debate, and this is a serious issue of conflict of interest. Haakon (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How could I assume good faith when someone is suggesting that ZDNet would be a usable reference and then I search and find that the product is actually listed there, provide the link but then ZDNet become a a non valid source ? Also, how can I assume good faith when someone is suggesting we paid to TopTenReviews to list the product there ? :( (when I know we did not and my guess is that this can be verified too ... Wiki lists TopTenReviews as a notable source and not one that charges to list products there ). Twocows is a valid source ? Then here it is: http://www.tucows.com/preview/513232?q=RationalPlan
 * Download pages don't make software notable. And it does not matter whether it is good or bad. Notability matters. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There was only one representant of the company, only I edited this page from home; I never hidden this, on the contrary, please remember I said it right from the start. I never tried to make it a "commercial" but rather placed on wiki a simple/short info about what RationalPlan is   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.78.101 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: On User talk:SkyBon, 194.102.135.133 argues that "taking [the RationalPlan article] out of wiki[pedia] might prevent [the product] from getting spread." I take this as an admission that the motivation for the article is promotional. Also note that the article has been deleted three times before. Haakon (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I could agree with you if by notable you mean famous ... indeed RationalPlan is not a famous package (as MS Project is for example). It is however a fair application, much better than lot of other applications in the same area which are already listed on wiki; if you would be a project manager you would say right away that GanttProject is simply a joke while RationalPlan is almost an MS Project at 1/10 of the cost (platform independent too). GanttProject is accepted on wiki but there is a big problem with RationalPlan it seems ... As far as I understand wiki, it is not a collection of "only famous stuff" but rather a comprehensive Encyclopedia; since Apple has listed RationalPlan it means at least that is a decent/fair application, please notice you won't find GanttProject there for example. I would also say again that some guys which are working in project management areas are finding RationalPlan notable enough to rank it #4 in a top-ten list. It could be that RationalPlan is relatively new in the market but good reviews are starting to come up (http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/reviews/36244.aspx); I guess this one you will find as not notable again while the TopTenReview would be "suspicious" (though is accepted on wiki ...) and apple listing would be "only a download link" (though it is obvious that apple won't list crap on their site). If it won't be a confidentiality issue I could provide the proof that one of the top ten banks in the world is evaluating RationalPlan for a complete replacement of MS project throughout the whole company/worldwide; this for me would mean that the product is quite notable (hopefully the deal will come through and trigger some embarrassment maybe). I'll rest my case by saying the the article has nothing promotional in it's nature, the messages from me were fair and I have put it right from the first post that I represented the company (and I have my suspicions not everybody was that open/fair). 194.102.135.133 (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that your company is afraid that losing Wikipedia coverage will mean losing a part of PR. Apple download page doesn't make the software notable. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 12:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is what we have in lieu of third party reliable sources. ~YellowFives 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Get rid of articles about products without notable sources. Marketing has made Wikipedia into a first stop in an advertising plan. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.