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)[reply]


Epicflow[edit]

Epicflow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Refs #16 and 17 were updated.

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

@Techforcatch:. 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)[reply]
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 Traintalk 08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More