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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2-plan project management software[edit]

2-plan project management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources online. Of the sources provided, the Internet Scout Project seems to be independent and reliable, however it is a brief description of the software. The rest are either not what we would consider RS, or in the case of Softpedia's 100% Clean Award, somewhat meaningless. wctaiwan (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Reconsider for Speedy Keep

May I ask for consideration due to the following:

1. Gizmo's Freeware is the Top 100 Websites of 2010 according to PC Magazine.

2. Elizabeth Harrin's "A Girl's Guide to Project Management" is Computer_Weekly's Blogger of 2010. It is likewise cited as the 6th reference in AceProject and 3rd reference in ConceptDraw Project among others.

3. Softpedia and SourceForge are usually cited as references in several Wikipedia articles.

4. According to the Google Adwords Keyword Tool, "2-plan" has 823,000 global monthly searches.

GuterTag (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it, the nom’s issues relate to core content policies on verifiability for: WP:SIGCOV and WP:SOURCES.
  • What was described as a source which “seems to be independent and reliable” provides no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) on the article. I disagree. The source in question addressed the article directly with the important details that concisely describe a software with the neutral tone of the academe. It is the main topic of the source material and even provided an entire web page (WP:NOTPAPER) for it. It is also in the right context.
Moreover, the source[1] material in question says it “delivers practical Web-based information and software solutions for educators, librarians and researchers” through a research team of “academics and professionals from Library Science and Computer Science, along with graduate and undergraduate students studying the sciences, social sciences and humanities”. In short, the source claims that it does not publish random or run-of-the-mill (WP:MILL) information. They have certainly noticed and selected the subject of the article for a purpose with a set criteria.
The article is verifiable (WP:V) with the quality of this reliable source. Per WP:IRS, Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. The article passes both criteria on direct support and appropriate claims.
  • WP:SOURCES says that the author of the source can affect reliability.
- For example, Elizabeth Harrin (WP:SOURCESEARCH) is a source used by others (WP:USEBYOTHERS) with notable Wikipedia articles in project management. She is the author of ‘Project Management in the Real World’ [2]. The work itself, A Girl's Guide to Project Management, is notable. While the article has not been the main topic of the source (WP:SIGCOV), it addressed the article directly in detail. Maybe not so comprehensively, but not in passing either as a phrase in one sentence.
If you also check “harrin elizabeth” on Google Scholar, you will see several of her scholarly works that relate to project management including the book earlier mentioned.
If the issue is about popularity because of what the title infers from this referenced source, then please allow me more time as I’ve just been recently browsing through a lot of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays on how to go about this AfD. Many of these remain unclear to me. But I’m learning from the experience.
- The assertion that Softpedia’s Award is somewhat meaningless will appear to be valid at first. But when we consider the context that this was about free software, then the award turns into a meaningful and useful information. It serves Wikipedia readers’ quest for information and more.
Let me explain. The “No Spyware. No Adware. No Viruses.” Award on a free software is no different from the policies of a free, online Encyclopedia that wants to preserve its integrity. I think WP:ADS, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT and WP:VANDAL policies/guidelines make Wikipedia what it is today through the hard work of many Wikipedians.
Softpedia is also used by others (WP:USEBYOTHERS) as source with notable Wikipedia articles in project management. What is most important also is that aside from having editorial oversight on what gets published on this source, it uses both humans and software to check for ads, spam, adverts, vandals and other malware just like Wikipedia. In a way, the Softpedia Award is meaningful in the proper context. The award is also notable because most free software has adware. Softpedia directly addressed the article in a very meaningful and useful way. This award is not trivial. It serves a purpose/function and is not readily given to anyone.
Per Diderot (Encyclopedia), the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge around the globe to render a service to the human race. Keeping this article improves Wikipedia as it gives readers alternative notable information on a topic which is dominated by commercial software.
Present circumstances indicate that people are now looking for free alternatives. When readers have a choice today between a commercial encyclopedia and Wikipedia, most readers would rely on Wikipedia. I think the present circumstances are also one of the reasons why the subject of this article is being noticed by reliable sources.
If we can give Wikipedia readers several choices on free notable project management software where they can easily compare each one under the standards and close scrutiny of Wikipedians, I guess Wikipedia would have rendered an excellent service in the topic area.
Thank you.

GuterTag (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi. The Gizmo's Freeware review is from Gizmo's Hot Finds Editor Robert Schifreen. WP:SOURCES says that the author of the source can affect reliability. If you search for "robert schifreen" using Google Scholar, you will see that he is a frequently cited author in the academe. He has several works most notably in computer security and data protection. Per WP:GNG, the review is very different from Elizabeth Harrin's. Likewise, Gizmo's is a notable source with a PC Magazine Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award.
Hemant Saxena also has another review at the The Windows Club. It is significantly different from the two reviews previously cited here. If you search for "hemant saxena" using Google scholar, you will also see that this author has a published work in biotechnology. This is not surprising as 2-plan is purported to be a free project management software for knowledge professionals.
Per WP:GNG, this article has 1 notable independent .edu source and 3 independent reviews with varied content by authors found in Google Scholar. Isn't 4 reliable sources that passes WP:SOURCES guidelines multiple already?

GuterTag (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:NOTCATALOG essentially states that: Sales catalogs. Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors. The reviews did not in any way mentioned prices nor did the article. GuterTag (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I discounted the the Gizmo's review is that the website appears to be a tech enthusiast blog and thus does not satisfy our standard for reliable sources. I agree this is debatable—the author of the review can be traced, and the site's about section contains the name of the operator. However, I tend to judge sources by their nature, and as such I feel the editorial control and level of professionalism here are below what we look for (the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write). wctaiwan (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this is not about whether you like the sources or not, or you feel that the journalists, professionals and academics behind these are not good enough according to your personal standard of editorial control and level of professionalism. The fact still remains that these are independent professionals with several published works that are cited in the academe and that the websites that they write for have notable awards in the IT industry. Those in the academe and IT industry think that these sources are good enough. The minimum requirement per WP:SIGCOV states that: Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Harrin's work on the subject might not be a substantial mention but it isn't trivial either. Schifreen directly addressed the subject. The Internet Scout Project, a .edu site, created a web page directly devoted to the subject with enough information to help researchers and educators determine if the subject will be suitable to their requirements. The question is, was the Wikipedia core content policies complied with or not per your rationale for the nomination? GuterTag (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-Gizmo's Review as a reliable source per WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check the British Computer Society. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press. Where the publisher of the source affects reliability, please consider that Gizmo's Top 100 Websites of 2010 Award is from PC Magazine. PC Magazine is a well known institution in the computer industry that general public computer and software buyers read. The award is also notable considering that hundreds of thousands of new websites are created yearly. Assuming that only 100,000 new websites are created in a given year, the top 100 is less than 1% of all new websites.
-Girl's Guide as a reliable source per WP:SOURCES where the author impacts the reliability of the source. Please check her works here, here, here, and here for the British Computer Society. This journal is published by the Oxford University Press.
-Softpedia as a reliable source. Softpedia has a current Alexa rank of 427. 2.38 million unique visitors relied on the reputation for integrity of Softpedia in September 2010.
-The University of Wisconsin as a reliable source for its Internet Scout Project. This university ranks No. 41 for 2011 among all universities in the world. Thank you. GuterTag (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (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