Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicflow

Epicflow

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

Non-notable software, a Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. None of the 16 used sources (2 are duplicates) qualifies as a fully independent reliable source with in-depth coverage (I'll add a detailed source review below). A possible "conflict of interest" hasn't been clarified and disclosed yet. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A more detailed review of the used sources (reference numbering as of now, may change):

Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.
Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)
Ref #5: self-published blog site by a "PMP Professional" with unclear expertise, offers sponsored advertising and reviews
Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage
Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source
Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.
Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).
Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)
Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers
Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.
Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).

In short: a lot of PR activities and professional marketing, but nothing to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated from July, 24 by Techforcatch

Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.

Even though the references are self-published, they were approved by our customers. The references were updated by reducing the number of mentions to one.

Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)

Ref #4 is the link to the article in the group of project management professionals. Here’s the part of it, if you lack access to this group. The article shows that Flow MPM, an earlier version of Epicflow, helped Pilz Netherlands win National Business Success 2015 Award. LinkedIn members can get access to this group.

Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage

Ref#7 is a success story, based on the benefits Epicflow’s real clients get after using the software for three months.

Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source.

StartUs Magazine is an independent source. The article was autonomously written by Daniel Tanque after the Web Summit 2016, Lisbon. It does not include any advertising material, rather spreads the news about the release of a project management tool, pointing to its unique features that have not been developed before.

Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.

Ref #9 (an article about Epicflow and MS Project) was approved by an independent editor of Project Accelerator with no costs spent for publishing.

Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).

The content was written independently by Finances Online expert, after crediting Epicflow with two awards without pursuing any marketing goals.

Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)

Refs #11 and 12 prove scientific PM expertise of our researchers - Jan Willem Tromp and Albert Ponsteen. These are publications in Procedia, a reliable scientific source with peer-reviews under the responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.

Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers

The article was approved by an independent editor from Project-Management.com. Our researcher’s expertise in this domain has already been shown above, as he contributed to a reliable scientific journal under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.

Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.

Ref #15 was updated.

Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).

Refs #16 and 17 were updated.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]