Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of project management software (2nd nomination) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_project_management_software_(2nd_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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of project management software (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 list compares business software types, and is wholly unreferenced. It seems to me that this is an unencyclopedic topic and fails WP:DIRECTORY; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to go to determine what product management software would be best to purchase for your business, which seems to be the primary feaure this page provides. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is simply List of project management software (that link is a redirect to this same article) which is perfectly at place in Wikipedia (and different from directory; it only includes entries for which there are Wikipedia articles). However, with the different products having different features a single list would be of little value and multiple lists (with article links repeated) unwieldly. Organising the list in this way - especially in a sortable table - is the ideal way to handle it. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this would seem to be a reasonable list/comparison article, admittedly one that could use sourcing improvements. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More than a directory, it's a comparison list. All listed names have articles, but further refs should be added.--Dmol (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. According to Wikipedia's goals, it aspires to become the best information resource available. The list of project management software with comparison information is a very, very useful item of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aik-itc (talk • contribs) 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not only a choice amongst software to purchase (some are GNU) and not only for business activity but can be usefull for personnal activity involving a lot of people. It is also related to project management methodologies articles from Wikipedia and useful for user to test what kind of PM is appropriate to him (PERT, Gantt...). Also removing it from Wikipedia would lead to have only commercial biaised comparisons on commercial paid websites while on Wikipedia comparison charts and tables can be controlled by the community, by the people. --gilles_maisonneuve (talk) (Sorry: long time since logged in, lost usr/pwd. Gilles Maisonneuve from office in Paris)194.119.85.99 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, absolutely. Pages like that are extremely useful, regardless of whether or not they are "suitable for an encyclopedia" (whatever that may be assumed to mean). They allow comparisons involving free software, something that is difficult to find in reviews published on commercial e-zines and paper magazines.

Keep, how is this any less "suitable for an encyclopedia" then a list of Star Trek episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.32.238 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (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.