Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLANTA Project

PLANTA Project

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

Does not appear to be notable. Very few/no gnews or other ghits. OSborn^arf_contribs. 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the other project management software products (e.g. Inloox, RPlan, Projectron BCS even Microsoft Project etc. etc.) and then compare what is notable and compare the references: some only cite their own case studies. The deletion policy in wikipedia is not transparent: if 30 and more products are allowed to be presented why not the 31? And when deleting PLANTA Project do not forget to delete all the other PM Product entries, too. Projektleiter (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Other articles not meeting the standards is not an excuse for this one, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you genuinely believe other articles do not meet the standards you're welcome to nominate them (assuming you aren't just trying to retaliate). Currently the article only cites PLANTA's own website, which cannot be used to establish notability- see the general notability guideline. OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Definitively there was not only PLANTA's own website cited: You completely ignored the 3 references to independent studies and articles and did not recognize that the article of Kristin Vogelsang was published by Projekt Magazin. Now, there have been added new weblinks to independent websites having published articles and studies about PLANTA Project, so that the wiki article is fully enhanced with reliable references. Please avoid commenting on people (see wiki guidelines on that) Projektleiter (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]