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. The only "keep" opinions are by editors with no or few edits unrelated to this topic, whereas established editors recommend deletion. I give their opinion greater weight because of conflict of interest concerns. (Reclosed after a previous "no consensus" closure following talk page discussion.)  Sandstein  05:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planio[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Planio (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)

Software with questionable notability, only one independent source Linkle KMF (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources from more independent websites, as the tools is quite popular in Europe.Tommycarney (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I believe that the company satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability requirement: it has some independent sources, one of which is a publication by Fraunhofer Society. The latter also confirms two large international corporations as customers. Companies which are not notable would not likely be able to attract clients like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janschulzhofen (talk • contribs) 10:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) — Janschulzhofen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NSOFT. Sources are primary or not independent. The book source contains content written by the CEO which does not count as a notability argument for this corp. Vrac (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The CEO was not an author of the book. He was one of the subjects of the book. In addition, the University of Marburg provides training on the use of Planio, which meets the notability requirements of WP:NSOFT. Tommycarney (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)— Tommycarney (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Autoren der Expertenbeiträge in alphabetischer Reihenfolge:...Jan Schulz-Hofen (Planio GmbH) ... Like I said. As for the the university: wurde ein internes Schulungsangebot eingerichtet, of course an organization that buys software is likely to offer internal training sessions on how to use it. It doesn't make this software particularly notable. Vrac (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CEO was interviewed as an expert. According to book listing, CEO is not an author. ^[1] Additionally, the part which states that MTV and Software AG are customers is not part of the interview but part of the general description of Planio in the paragraph leading into the interview. Finally, there are at least 6 additional independent secondary sources for the article. Tommycarney (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that the fact that University of Marburg bought and uses the software could make the software notable on its own. The University is a renowned institution which is over 500 years old. A software which their data center services department selects and rolls out campus-wide will unlikely be unknown. Being a customer doesn't make the source dependent IMHO. Janschulzhofen (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument for notability in Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is established by what reliable sources say about subjects, not on opinions of importance or ideas of intrinsic notability. The university web page is not a reliable source, it is an informational page for their project management. And please don't try to tell me otherwise like Tommycarney did, I do speak German. Vrac (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fraunhofer is a customer of Planio's which means the source is not exactly independent. Vrac (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fraunhofer Society is an organisation with over 23,000 employees and 66 separate institutes. According to the source you mention only the Fraunhofer ITWM (Institute for Technology and Industrial Mathematics) based in Kaiserslautern is a customer. The book was written by Fraunhofer IAO (Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und Organisation) which is based in Stuttgart. There is no connection between the one institute being a customer and the other institute writing the book. Janschulzhofen (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say, but there is a potential conflict of interest, kind of like you editing your company's Wikipedia article, except that there is no doubt about your conflict of interest. Since the creator of this article has attempted to misrepresent sources, I'm inclined to be skeptical of claims of propriety. You really should read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Vrac (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am generally in favour of keeping Wikipedia clean and not creating articles for every new startup that pops up. However, this company is 5 years old and seems to have acquired some notability. It has won an award and a book has been written about it. No matter if the CEO is an author or not - Fraunhofer has decided to include them in their book. Fraunhofer is a reputable organization. I don't think they'd to this "as a favour" because they're clients. Also being offered to students by Uni Marburg is quite strong." — Charlie.rodricks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Note to admins: this AFD was not listed in any deletion log from 7/16 until 8/2 due to an edit conflict issue during relisting on 7/16. Please relist for another week if it doesn't reach consensus by the time it expires (which I think is today 8/3). Thanks, Vrac (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - another project management startup. Nothing indicates that WP:ORG criteria is met.--Rpclod (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (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.