Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MetaTeam (software)

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. Does not meet our inclusions guidelines such as WP:PRODUCT, and does not meet WP:V, a core policy. As David V Houston noted, among the cites listed, the software is only mentioned once in passing in the only reliable source. A number of other long PDF sources did not mention the product at all. SilkTork *^YES! 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MetaTeam (software)

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage, and those given are not much more than incidental mentions. Haakon (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Haakon. I think you may be short changing the notability of both the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's Venture Forum organization and the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The Venture Forum is a significant proponent of startups in Western MA and they gave quite a bit of attention to eVisioner and MetaTeam.

I understand that the EIU citation is small and may seem insignificant, but please consider that Team Governance is a new category of product, though one with considerable academic and professional credentials, with one entry — so arguably the mention is more notable for its newness. Moreover, the other cited companies included Google, Facebook and other household names. So while MetaTeam is clearly not as notable as some of its peers, it has also clearly been noticed and held up by a serious organization.

I would ask that the article not be deleted, at least at this time.

If you think it makes more sense to move the product description to a company page I'll do it. (I admit I probably should have done that, but thought the product more notable on balance).

Sbugs (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More software relating to the supervision of computer programmers --- a collaborative team governance Web application --- that really needs evidence of notability in a wider world. None here: even a general Google search finds only download and internal sites. Attempts at claiming significance

In the area of project management software MetaTeam is notable for its focus on the governance issues of work teams as a first-class concern, rather than as secondary to scheduling, budgeting and documents. This attention is paid in the context of how the organization activities are specified by standards like the PMBOK, in its Project Human Resource Management skill area

and arguing notability in the article itself---

cited as the exemplar for the Team Governance category in a report on virtual teams... well-reviewed by bloggers... was a finalist in the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's WPI Venture Forum Business Plan Contest

fail to convince of significance outside IT departments, and instead the self-congratulatory nature of all these "references" pushes the article in the direction of advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ihcoyc. There is no mention of computer programmers or of using the product in IT in the article or on the company site provided. In fact, MetaTeam is a soft-skills oriented tool, applicable to IT/software development, sure, but more geared towards Project Management Office-style oversight, DoD specific regulations, and general business projects.

There is no intent to be self-congratulatory in the references (not suggesting you are wrong in picking that up, just that the attempt was to be neutral while at the same time offering evidence of notability. A difficult task!)

Please suggest how the article can be edited to be more factual and less self-congratulatory – happy to adjust.

Sbugs (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sbugs claims notability due to the Economist. The software is mentioned precisely once, in passing, as an example of a minor part of what they are talking about. Entirely non-notable, IMO. David V Houston (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (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.