Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AceProject (3rd nomination)

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. Consensus to delete. While independent sourcing was identified, there was consensus that the nature of the sources was insufficient to demonstrate notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AceProject[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously Deleted, Salt to this page. non notable. NY times coverage is on Blog sections and nothing in-depth. Coverage merely on Online blog. Not establishes Encyclopedia notability. Light2021 (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Duffy, Jill (2017-01-10). "AceProject Review". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  PROS
  
  Affordable. Lets you add a deep level of detail to tasks. Includes Gantt charts, reporting tools, time tracking features, expenses. Open API for paid account holders. Broad range of mobile apps.
  
  CONS
  
  No chat app or team discussion boards. Isn't supported by Zapier. Pages slow to load. Mediocre drag-and-drop tools. No calendar. New user invitations were not received in testing.
  
  BOTTOM LINE
  
  AceProject puts function over form in its sturdy but basic project management solution. It's affordable, but not feature-rich.
  This article is an extensive review of AceProject.
2. Proffitt, Brian (2012-06-19). "Basecamp vs. Zoho Projects vs. AceProject". ITworld. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  I didn't know much about AceProject coming into the research phase of this review. Therefore, it was a pleasant surprise to see such a comprehensive project manager when I rolled into the system.
  From the very first screen, I was impressed, especially with the dashboard that contained pretty much everything I needed to see about my own work. This system enables an unlimited number of users to track tasks, projects, time, and expenses in a cloud-based interface that was fast and efficient to navigate.
  ...
  Overall, these three tools each offer unique ways to help you manage your time and projects.
  AceProject is by far the most comprehensive and granular in nature, but for organizations that are looking for more collaboration than project management, it may be too much.
3. Kaelin, Mark (2011-04-19). "Review: AceProject cloud-based project management". TechRepublic. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  What is wrong?
  
  Speed: Because your project exists in the cloud, the hosted system's response to your commands can be a little sluggish when compared to an onsite application. However, as I am writing this review I received news that AceProject is upgrading its servers, which may mitigate some of these concerns.
  
  Learning curve: The AceProject suite of applications may be web-based, but it does not skip on features. New users to the system will likely go through a significant learning curve, especially if they have never used a project management system before.
4. Freedman, David H. (2011-06-01). "Tools That Can Help When There Is Too Much on Your Plate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-07-18. Retrieved 2017-07-18.
  The article notes:
  
  Task-organizing tools can be as simple as a to-do list (and I’ll be doing a separate post on those tools). Project-management tools, by contrast, are for bigger, more complex organizing jobs — but you don’t have to be building nuclear subs to benefit from them. Jill Bode, who runs a public relations agency called Designed Write in Franklin, Ind., uses an online service called AceProject (priced from zero to $99 a month, depending on the number of users, projects and tasks) to track various campaigns and efforts — currently 46 different projects for 18 clients. “I’m not a great multitasker,” Ms. Bode said. “I really like having a tracking mechanism for making sure that everything is moving forward, even if I’m not directly touching each of the projects.”
  As do most project-management tools, AceProject has users type in the tasks that make up a given project, including who’s responsible for each one, when the tasks need to be started, when they have to be completed by, and what sort of time and effort is required to get each done. The process pushes Ms. Bode to think through the details of each project, she said, and then it keeps her posted on possible trouble spots. The service notifies her on login or even by e-mail when someone falls behind on a task, or when there simply isn’t enough time to get something done. “It gives me a 50,000-foot view,” she said, “and then I can zoom in to get whatever details I need to see what’s causing any problems.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow AceProject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the only active editors from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AceProject (2nd nomination): DESiegel (talk · contribs) and Satori Son (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
: As usual Copy-Paste job. NY times written exactly one paragraph that you copy pasted. No-Indepth coverage. other sources are not notable as per Wiki Standards. Daily online blog write everyday for this or that softwares. Pinging All from 2nd AfD: Kurykh, DES ^(talk), DES, L, Mel, Satori Son Light2021 (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The PC Mag review alone is substantial coverage, and i don't have any idea why Light2021 would think it not reliable -- I've been depending on it since long before Wikipedia was created. The NY Times coverage is more than 1 paragraph -- read down in the story for further coverage of Ace. It is called a "blog" but this is really an online column and a fully reliable source. (The fact that the column is daily adds to its reliability, not detracts, IMO.) The same is true of the Tech Republic coverage. These alone are sufficient to establish notability, and several of the others would be as well. No valid reason to delete this time -- much improved over previous version of the article. These source would permit improving the article, which should be done, but notability depends on the sources found, not the sources cited and used. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage shown above is does not demonstrate notability. The tech crunch article is WP:Churnalism and really does not demonstrate why this is notable. It only discusses features of the product - it is very mundane and routine coverage. The New York Times article is insignificant coverage that mentions this product along with other similar products. It discusses general needs in common with types of people yearning to be organized then it discusses several products. Even PC mag says it has deficiencies. The "print" or "web" coverage does not go beyond helpful tips. Wikipedia is not an advice column. This article is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion wp:promo. I agree with delete and salt. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No TechCrunch article is mentioned here or in the article. The articles are clearly not Wikipedia:Churnalism. They provide detailed analysis of the company. Here is a negative review from PC Magazine:
But AceProject skips some aspects of project management that are essential to many teams, such as a calendar and an in-app chat box. It's slightly better than average, but it doesn't beat out PCMag's two recommended Editors' Choices, which offer small businesses more in features and value: Teamwork Projects and Zoho Projects.
Here is a review from ITworld with negative material about AceProject:
AceProject is by far the most comprehensive and granular in nature, but for organizations that are looking for more collaboration than project management, it may be too much.
Here is a review with negative content from TechRepublic:
What is wrong?
Speed: Because your project exists in the cloud, the hosted system's response to your commands can be a little sluggish when compared to an onsite application. However, as I am writing this review I received news that AceProject is upgrading its servers, which may mitigate some of these concerns.
Learning curve: The AceProject suite of applications may be web-based, but it does not skip on features. New users to the system will likely go through a significant learning curve, especially if they have never used a project management system before.
"Even PC mag says it has deficiencies." – that the article says it has deficiencies does not make AceProject non-notable.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources found are just routine mentions in publications that would talk about any software, good bad or indifferent, and the New York Times source listed above looks awfully like a press release or some other advert. There isn't anything in the above coverage listed that can't be simply expressed as "it's a bit of software". Which significant customers does it have? What's its userbase and national or international presence? How has it contributed to the sum of human knowledge? We don't know because the sources don't tell us. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything in the above coverage listed that can't be simply expressed as "it's a bit of software". – the reviews talk about what are the strengths and weaknesses of the software. This analysis clearly establishes notability.
There is no requirement for the sources to answer the questions Which significant customers does it have? What's its userbase and national or international presence? How has it contributed to the sum of human knowledge? If the sources did answer those questions, another AfD participant would probably say those sources are advertisements or reprints of press releases.
Cunard (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the days of TUCOWS, and they would mention the pros and cons of just about every software application released to the public. It's indiscriminate and routine coverage. Simply telling us the positives and negatives doesn't tell us why it's important. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive reviews of the company are not "indiscriminate" or "routine coverage".

Simply telling us the positives and negatives doesn't tell us why it's important. – there is no need to prove that a company is important per WP:ITSIMPORTANT. There is only a need to prove that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, which has been done.

Cunard (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that's only a guideline, not an absolute dogma. To give a (admittedly facetious) counter-example, I could claim Public toilets in Ashford, Kent is a notable topic because it meets WP:GNG ([1][2][3][4]) even though that sounds patently ridiculous. What WP:ITSIMPORTANT actually says is "don't just !vote at an AfD saying 'it's useful' without any other context", which obviously is not what's happening here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public toilets in Ashford, Kent is not notable because the only sources available are a government website and routine coverage in a local newspaper with titles like "Man freed from New Street, Ashford public toilets" and "Public loos in Ashford have been closed but you can relieve yourself in these 12 places". As WP:ROUTINE notes:

Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories).

If there was significant non-run-of-the-mill coverage of "Public toilets in Ashford, Kent" in national sources like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and The Times, then the topic would be notable.

The articles about AceProject are not "common, everyday, ordinary items". They are significant product reviews in major sources like The New York Times, PC Magazine, ITworld, and TechRepublic.

Cunard (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims of notability are things like "the fourth most popular project management software on Yahoo! Directory", and all of Cunard's references are product reviews. I don't see any other coverage of the company. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article's subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and appears to have drawn notice from some large outlets. While this coverage is borderline routine (we would not create an article for every item that PCMag reviews), there appears to be a breadth in coverage that makes up for this. How much semi-routine coverage does there need to be for it to no longer be routine? This is a tough question, but I would err on the side of keeping the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is permanent. This one looks to be permanently non-notable. Back in 2007 it was deleted as non-notable. The sources now date, at the latest to 2008. The most obvious ref to show this is A blast from the past written in 2008 about 2001 and really just a minimal passing mention from the company itself. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with due respect to the coverage provided above, which is all of a WP:ROUTINE nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I see passing mentions in reliable sources. I don't see "significant coverage", which is the standard. Rockypedia (talk) 01:38, 29 July 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.