Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Active Collab

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 delete. The "keep" arguments were basically variations of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Active Collab

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

A Corporate profile, Press coverage or Blog articles combined into one Wikipedia Article. Corporate Spam by nature and non-notable by standards. Light2021 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- should be excluded as WP:NOTSPAM. The article contains "History", "Features" & "Technology" sections; Wikipedia is not a replacement for a company web site or a free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Be Deleted -- The company exists since 2006 and develops one of the oldest online project management tools. Also, ActiveCollab's last open sourced release was used as the initial code base for Feng Office and as such is relevant to the history of web based project management software. References were used from other online sources as well as from university textbooks. Any suggestions on how to make it less biased and not promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandar olic (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. one-third of the article is devoted to details of purchasing the software. Unfortunately, removing it would also remove many of the references. Several of the others are just mentions. A list of "Best tools for XYZ" in a computer magazine is not coverage for notability & doesn't really imply a judgement of "Best" --it's just the conventional title for a very brief checklist of recent software. It's not a full review. DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC) .[reply]
Delete per DDG, removing the promotional material found in the article would also strip it of many citations. The page would require a fundamental rewrite to improve.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously placed here as a means of promotion with mundane and routine information to tout a product WP:NOTSPAM. Coverage does not demonstrate notability and mentions in lists are not significant coverage per GNG nor demonstrate CORPDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Be Deleted -- Yes, Wikipedia is not a replacement for company web site or a free means of promotion, but this article isn't placed here as a means of promotion with mundane or promotional information. In fact, the article is written in the same vein as wikis for other project management software. You can take a look at some well-known solutions like Basecamp, Teamwork_(software), Asana_(software), and Wrike, or even obscure ones like AceProject, Ubidesk, and FusionForge, and see how similar they are. Also, there are over 150 entries of project management software and a good deal of them have fewer citations and demonstrate less notability than Active Collab. The article shouldn't be deleted but instead be rewritten so it conforms better to Wikipedia standards. As previously mentioned, Active Collab used to be open-source and it was used as the basis for other solutions. Thus, it demonstrates both historical as well as current significance (here are some of the most notable and latest independent reviews 1 and 2). Aleksandar olic (talk)

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.