Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectInsight

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. Nancy ^talk 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectInsight[edit]

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

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}}.

Non-notable software. References given are to small trade publications that do not confer notability; and to press releases that do not count as reliable sources. All seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.

Part of a long term spam campaign see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#projectinsight.net

Obvious advertising; Article was created by an WP:SPA account, and maintained by multiple sock accounts with no other edits other than related to ProjectInsight.Speedily deleted once before and re-created. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am a contributor to the article. The following references have been added to better illustrate the notability of Project Insight:

Information Week, a large independent publication with circulation of 440,000. The focus of the Information Week story is on how an organization used Project Insight to solve Resource Management and other Project Management challenges.

Baseline Magazine, a Ziff Davis publication, with circulation of 125,000. The focus of the Baseline story how an organization used Project Insight to solve Document Management and other Project Management challenges.

References on pages 38-39 in this book: AdvancED Flex Application Development: Building Rich Media X published in 2008.

Reference on page 74 in the this book: Cloud Computing Web-Based Applications That Change the Way You Work and Collaborate Online published in 2008.

The reference is a press release and is included to establish existence as a completed Project Management Software product since 2002. The references above meet the criteria outlined in WP:CORP.

Project Insight is a mature, notable, Project Management Software product, and the article adds value to the related articles Project Management Software and List of Project Management Software.

If you check the history, I have recently worked to improve the neutrality of article. I would appeciate specific feedback on any sentence or paragraph in the article that does not meet the neutrality guidelines so that I can correct them. I also welcome any other feedback or input to so that I can improve the article as well. Please add any recommendations on the Project Insight talk page or my talk page. Thanks!--SurfAndSwim (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — SurfAndSwim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I nominated this for deletion. IT-related trade publications with a limited audience do not confer notability, and I see no general interest coverage; see the notability essay on software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I am an user of this software and I do not understand why it has been tagged as an excesive-commercially article. I add some reasons why I think this article cannot be fairly tagged for deletion:

The content includes a brief history of the product, and a list of functionalities, besides a very interesting list of Project Management articles and Press references for respected magazines such as Business Wire, AJAX magazine or CNNMoney. Furthermore, it includes world references like Red Herring listing. The vast majority of this articles have no relationship with the product manufacturer.
If you visit any of the other Project Management softwares included in this listing: List_of_project_management_software you will find more commercially articles, including logo and comercially biased descriptions.
Please, remove this tag.
Alex Ballarin at www.cynertiaconsulting.com Barcelona, Spain — Alex of Bcn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep Seeing this deletion rationale I expected a glossy sales brochure. Actually seing the 3-lines article is quite disappointing - and I would say that only a desperate and hallucinating salesman would see this as useful advert (=spam). Checked a few of the 15 references, and they sure seem to be a pass for WP:GNG. Smerdis is off track on this issue, with his home grown and extremely restrictive criteria, not recognizing the notability of niche products. I completely disagree on this. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think it's terribly unreasonable to insist that, before they rise to the level of being encyclopedia subjects, commercial software must become actually motable --- i.e. receive some notice outside the business or technical communities it circulates in. If only those communities have heard of it, it needs to be recognized as a major player, technically innovative, or historically significant. This is what the notability essay on software --- by no means my sole effort --- says, Yes, I do think that we need to get away from the situation where every such package thinks it rates an encyclopedia page because its competitors have one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Part of marketing campaign. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 20:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Keep Being mentioned in anything circulated to that many people, makes it notable. They wouldn't bother mentioning anything that wasn't considered worth talking about. Dream Focus 02:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've lost me here: are you saying that anything mentioned (at all, and however briefly) in a large-scale publication or web site is therefore by definition notable? Every high school football player who is simply mentioned in their local paper as having played in a game is notable, so long as their local paper is the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times? Every product—with only the tiniest blurb, or with only a single mention—on large web site is notable? That's an interesting concept, to be sure. Got a link to a policy or guideline where that can be found? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a marketing campaign. Alex of Bcn possible WP: SPA ? LoudHowie (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added another book reference to the article: Project Management Software Systems Requirements, Selection Process and Products (excerpt) ISBN 3-937818-13-8 by Dr. Frederik Ahlemann and Kristin Backhaus, which covers Project Insight among other Project management software products. I believe the additional reference enhances the notability of Project Insight within the context of Project management software and Comparison of project management software articles which the Project Insight article supports.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the software is mentioned in the table of contents provided in the excerpt, it is hard to verify the notability asserted by this article since the actual content of the article is not provided in this excerpt. I would also closely examine the purpose of this study as it is clearly marked that it is "distributed and marketed" by an outside organization. And yet another problem which I have with this source is the fact that the organization which has commissioned this study now appears to be closed, as per their homepage. - LoudHowie (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided the link to the excerpt for the benefit of the discussion. The book is written by Prof. Dr. Frederik Ahlemann and is available at the German National Library. He has other publications in Project Management fields. I believe that this reference qualifies as a reliable, independent, secondary source, but if it doesn't, then it can be removed from the article. The article ProjectInsight article has other references as well, this was just an addition.--SurfAndSwim (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and SPA-spam. Haakon (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article contains a claim that a parent company is somewhat notable ("Red Herring North America 100 Finalist") but notability is not inherited and the many references simply confirm that the product exists and is used by at least a handful of minor organizations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was created by User:Stevewest9. The president of the company making ProjectInsight is named Steve West [1]. I doubt this is a coincidence, and it indicates a glaring conflict of interest issue. Haakon (talk) 19:59, 30 November 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.