Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Easy_Projects_.NET

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Projects .NET

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

Contested proposed deletion; this article has been speedily deleted once before as obvious advertising. Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been a "finalist" for consideration to a minor industry award that confers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed for more than two weeks, nobody has made any claim in its defense and it was relisted? Why? Get rid of this spam junk. What does it take to realize PR companies are on to the game of how to get on Wikipedia? Make an account, make a couple useless edits. Write the article you want. Fake the references. Never use that account again. Wikipedia can't compete against the promotional budget of a corporation by playing nice. Get rid of crap promotional articles about products. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: I'm not sure notability is asserted and the text reads like an unsourced story. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see significant coverage in independent reliable sources in three external links. That's an easy keep to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was temporarily closed by Cirt but Cirt then relisted following this deletion review. Please note the claimed sources in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly WP:SPAM, fail WP:RS, consisting of blogs and press releases and other spammy things pushed out by the company, and the page seems mostly to be Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis/Ihcoyc, whose remarks certainly stand up to close examination. This software was, indeed, one of the 98 finalists for a minor award in 2007, but it has not received anything I would call significant coverage in sources that I consider reliable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment severly toned down the promotional writing style of the article. The opinion I have earlier given to keep the article stands. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The software has been featured in industry publications such as PM Network published by the PMI, twice in 2 separate issues May 2009 and August 2009 respectively. These types of publications are not freely available on the web to the general public, as they are distributed to subscribers and members of the PMI. Googling "Easy Projects .NET PM Network" will produce proof of coverage. This product has also been featured in other print publications including Inc as well as project management related books and whitepapers by industry consultant David Coleman (42 Rules for Successful Collaboration). Because the software does target professionals in the project management field, the coverage by industry experts and publications is thus significant. In the list of Project Management Software articles, there are much more promotional articles than this one. Original article also highlighted the significance of this software in the development of an open source data access framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbammy (talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User Special:Contributions/Xbammy - makes no edits for three years, and shows up on this spamcruftisement. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have never spammed, and have in the past approached a fellow Wikipedia admin in order to obtain feedback on the article and improve it. The argument that I have not recently made edits does not take away from the fact that the software in question has received notable industry coverage. Xbammy (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your odd edit contributions history leads one to the possibility that you are a WP:SPA here on Wikipedia in this case on behalf of promotion of a company. And no, the software in question has not received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur that your account seems to be mainly used for discussions and edits around this software, which is suspect, Xbammy. Though you have disputed the reliablity of the sources mentioned, Crit, with which I don't agree, I don't see any reason to say the sources in External Links are not secondary or independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the BNET review appears solid (if short), the nomination for the award looks minor but vaguely helpful, and the girl-blog-liuthing has now shown up enough times in different places that I'm leaning toward treating her as a mildly reliable source. The press release [1] from the folks giving the award would actually count as independent coverage even though it is a press release. It's close, but I think its a keeper. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 19 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.