Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vpmi

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 I don't agree at all that we should discount sources simply because they are not on-line but significant concern about sources has been raised and its unusual for a software suite to only have offline sources. Given the concerns about possible COI and unsubstantiated sources the result is delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vpmi

Vpmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Vpmi. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• delete Isn't there a speedy code for recreating previously deleted content? Even if not, the article is Fully buzzword compliant, but noncompliant with WP:CORP. Argyriou (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a Speedy Deletion criteria for recreated content, but only if it was deleted following AfD. Usually, most recreations retain the flaws that got them speedied in the first place, which is why some articles are repeatedly speedied under other criteria. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article fails to establish notability, and is not properly sourced. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. First it is important to thank you for discussing this rather than simply deleting it. An older and very different version of this article was deleted in early December. After 1 month of repeated attempts for clarification and justification behind that decision (to which no reply was given) this article was republished in a very different and scaled back version. I suggest that user Ultraexactzz compare the original deleted article to the one today. The article today is very short and presents only facts about the product, notable references, and links to other articles in Wikipedia. Unlike another software link for Microsoft project, no screenshots are presented of the software or list of features. It was written using the AtTask, Inc. article as a template. Contrary to the view above, I believe the software is notable as defined in the Wikipedia:Notability section where it says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should you disagree, I think it would be reasonable to ask why the sources listed do not qualify for notability. They are all third-party magazines, journals (including PM Network, the only publication sent to all Project Management Institute members each month) and widely disseminated books in the project management world. In both books, you will find that VPMi is the ONLY project management software tool noted. One of the books is used in classrooms across the world for advanced degree classes in project management. Please compare to other software listed on the List of project management software page to see that many list no references yet are not being challenged as notable, ie., Basecamp, JIRA (software), Central Desktop, Artemis, ProjectInsight, Microsoft project, Teamwork (software) and others. A claim above is made that this is self promotion and product placement. VPMi is added to this list because it is a notable project management tool. To the extent that this can be construed as product placement is simply a reality of the software being a product. By definition, listing a software tool and including it in the List of project management software and Wikipedia makes it a product placement. The same can be said for every other software tool listed on Wikipedia. The salient question is whether or not it is notable and not Wikipedia:Spam. I have not read anything that would lead me to conclude it is not notable. The content is not blatant advertising and the article is there to provide content to a list for notable project management software. It enhances the value and quality of the list.--Tilleyg (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No real claim of notability that I can see, other than "Well, some sources mention it, so you need an article." I don't think we do; there are a bunch of similar products, and this one doesn't seem remarkable or important. Brianyoumans (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Dear Brianyoumans, to say that VPMi does not seem remarkable or important leaves me wondering the basis for your conclusion. It seems subjective. VPMi was recently given a large technology audit by The Butler Group, Europe's leading IT Research and Analysis Organization. VPMi is one of the only project management SaaS applications they have reviewed. The Butler Group, a highly respected research firm felt VPMi was remarkable and important. Please let me know why you disagree with them.--Tilleyg (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out the AtTask article, I just proposed it for deletion. It was only written 5 days ago, and had slipped by for a few days. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tilleyg makes a good point that other editors appear to be missing. Xe has cited independent sources that document this software package: several non-press-release newspaper articles and two books. "Not properly sourced" appears to be based upon the erroneous premise that we delete articles just because they don't spoon-feed the reader which paragraph comes from which source, and "doesn't seem remarkable or important" is not justified in policy, since by long-standing consensus we don't use editor's personal opinions of what to them seems famous, remarkable, popular, or important as the criteria. Notability is not subjective. Tilleyg has cited sources, in the article no less, to attempt to show that the PNC is satisfied. (I roundly applaud xem for doing so.) Editors have not even looked at those sources, and as such certainly haven't rebutted the assertion that they demonstrate notability. Remember: A single keep with multiple cited sources will outweigh any number of "delete, doesn't seem notable to me" opinions. The ball is in the court of those wanting deletion to actually read and evaluate the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per my nom. It has become apparent since October 2007 This WP:SPA account has contributed nothing to Wikipedia other than related to Vpmi and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Perhaps if notability can be established with source that don't require a library card to fact-check, and sources that are not trivial coverage this may have legs. 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. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I never read anything that said you have to contribute a pre-defined amount of content on Wikipedia before any of your content can be included. That seems absurd. That said, I have also submitted content to Resource management and Risk management. Both times unrelated to the Vpmi article.--Tilleyg (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Perhaps if notability can be established with source that don't require a library card to fact-check". No wikipedia policy puts this limitation on sources. I strongly doubt that there will ever be a policy that puts this limitation on sources. A case study on the product in question does constitute more than trivial or incidental coverage. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Here's is a trivial mention from the book cited (Schwalbe, Kathy (2007). Information Technology Project Management Fifth Edition)[1]"...like VPMi Enterprise Online (www.vcsonline.com); see front cover for trial version information ". reads like a paid adition rather than a scholarly mention--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The conclusion of a paid addition is presumptuous. The author of the book should be contacted before making such claims. I am amazed at the relentless effort to remove this article when by all accounts it is better referenced than any other article listed on [List of project management software]].--Tilleyg (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure on what policy is on Wikipedia for entry of vendors and thier products, but as the Analyst and author of the report on VPMi mentioned I can say it is a very useful product that will help many small organisations bring PM disciplin to project work. However, at Butler Group we are independant, and do not provide endorsements for vendors or products, we analyse and report on the IT market. I am willing to discuss with anybody the strengths and weaknesses of VPMi and how it potentially will help create a new segment of the SaaS market, but can not provide an endorsement of it or the vendor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.122.241 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) — 91.110.122.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is this report published? Wikipedia welcomes knowledgeable editors but requires that any contributions is sourced, if you wish to include content from sources you have created you might want to read our policies on self citing. Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Several independent sources exists.Taemyr (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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.