 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 October 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. MuZemike 19:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ConceptDraw PROJECT[edit]
- ConceptDraw PROJECT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was speedy deleted and reconsidered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 17. A number of issues have been raised, including whether the product meets the notability standards and whether the article is neutral. A rewrite is definitely necessary and should take place while this is at AfD, but deletion should be considered as well. Also, participants should keep in mind that conflict of interest questions have been raised regarding the article's author. Chick Bowen 00:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep The searches above provide [1], [2], [3] (mostly behind pay wall) indicate borderline notability, but that second one looks like more than a puff piece. I'd prefer to see a second good bit of coverage in a RS as the others look like they might be rehashed PR releases. The one behind a pay wall might be quite good but I can't see enough to tell. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another blast from the "project management" spam farm, non-consumer software useful only for supervising or managing computer programming work - a project management software tool from Computer Systems Odessa. Presents projects as a Gantt Chart with linked tasks, milestones and deadlines. There is no way this will ever become notable outside the field of IT management or become a household name. References found all relate to the IT business and as such have "limited interest and circulation". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that IT specialists and project managers won't be interested in this software or they don't read Wiki? CSOWind (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot say whether they will be interested in it or not; only that the references supplied do not establish that it's notable outside that field and merits inclusion in a general-interest encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that IT specialists and project managers won't be interested in this software or they don't read Wiki? CSOWind (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Could you tell me what policy or guideline indicates that we shouldn't have information that would normally be found only in specialized encyclopedias? WP:N doesn't distinguish specialized sources from general sources. 141.212.111.88 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First you seem to be a site-representative. Ie. ("we") So I'd start with WP:COI. Aditionaly, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your software products.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy cow, I forget to log in and I'm some person with a COI. Does Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Ring any bells? We (meaning us here at Wikipedia) are to include information that would be found in specialized encyclopedias. If you believe this would be found in a specialized encyclopedia you are making a keep argument. As shown above, there are reliable sources that cover this in depth, so it would seem to meet WP:N. I'm curious what part of WP:NOT you think is in violation and the other aren't reasons for deleting a notable topic... Hobit (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, "we" neans wikipedia "we", sorry bout that.--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First you seem to be a site-representative. Ie. ("we") So I'd start with WP:COI. Aditionaly, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your software products.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Could you tell me what policy or guideline indicates that we shouldn't have information that would normally be found only in specialized encyclopedias? WP:N doesn't distinguish specialized sources from general sources. 141.212.111.88 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to ConceptDraw. Was deleted previously 3 times under the article ConceptDraw Project; twice under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 and once as a prod.
- * Quite a long history of article Spamming and promotion by "ConceptDraw" on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#ConceptDraw_Spam.
- Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see, if the same article (last variant) was submitted by somebody else (not from CS Odessa), it wasn't discussed at all. My mistake - I should create an account with neutral info, so it wouldn't be a "self-promotion".CSOWind (talk) 06:14, 30 September 2009 (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.