Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PLANTA Project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PLANTA Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (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 arfcontribs. 15:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn arfcontribs. 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 arfcontribs. 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]
- 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 arfcontribs. 13:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 02:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I can't really evaluate some of those refs, being snippet views, but I am not convinced that the program meets WP:MILL. OSborn arfcontribs. 14:05, 13 April 2011 (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.