Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjektronBCS

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, and defaulting to keep, though I note the concerns of Smerdis of Tlön regarding the writing style of the article. In terms of "vote count" I am seeing 2-2 (it is unclear if the nominator Ged UK is arguing for deletion, but the statement makes it look like an office job rather than a call for deletion), and I need to evaluate the arguments somewhat. DustFormsWords' argument about the software being a run-of-the-mill product, with no assertion of notability does not cover the awards the product has received, and which Joe Chill's link appears to confirm. The lack of coverage noted by Smerdis of Tlön also appears to be somewhat due to the incorrect spelling ("ProjektronBCS" rather than "Projektron BCS"), as noted by Chris Johnson. Since independent coverage on the topic has been presented, which refutes part of the deletion arguments, I cannot read a consensus to delete here, but I cannot rule out this being revisited in the future. I will also move the article so that the title reflects the sources covering it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProjektronBCS

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

Speedy earlier declined as software. Article then PRODded, which was contested via the talk page (and a hangon tag). Thus bringing to AfD for decision. Ged UK 07:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reference - The comment below by BlindzeroMUC is the objection to the delete that appears on the article's talk page; I'm copying it in good faith. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I dont get this: If I want to complete the page "List_of_project_management_software" and put this software in there, the entry will be deleted, if no article is behind. Now I put an article and that will be deleted? What sense does this make?Please have a look into "List_of_project_management_software". Then you should mark mostly all of the linked articles there! Regards. BlindzeroMUC (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete - the article does not assert that the software is notable. The fact that it appears as a red link on List of project management software does not mean that it deserves an article. The listing on the the list page should be delinked and ProjektronBCS should be deleted. The possible existence of reliable sources (which as yet don't appear in the article) would create a presumption of notability which would then be rebutted by the arguments made at WP:MILL. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not notable - There are 102 entries in List_of_project_management_software. Maybe Projektron BCS is not well-known in the US, but it is one of the better known solutions in the market and definitely much much more important to project management professionals then most of the other solutions on that list. Also for general technologies Projektron BCS is really on of the leading solutions as it was 100%webbased already in 2001, where most of the named solutions where not existing at all.
As realiable sources I added the BARC study, which is completely independent and where Projektron BCS was analysed as well.
I also think it is notable if a software got some awards of independent media, fairs and government.
BlindzeroMUC (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I proposed this for deletion. Google News Archive search draws a blank on this article. More importantly, this isn't really an article; almost all of the text is devoted to extolling its virtues --- The software covers multi-project management and includes features for time recording and quality management, resource and contact management, and provides a ticket system. The user interface can be redefined in terms of its content and can be adapted to the customer’s corporate design using stylesheets and customised graphics. Additional attributes and comment lists can be configured for each object. A variety of interfaces helps to integrate Projektron BCS into an existing IT environment --- and that makes it unambiguous advertising as well, and Wikipedia is not a free host for advertising brochures or software spec sheets.

Note also that this article sprung full blown, complete with infoboxes and categories, from the get go. I suspect paid insertions when confronted with history like that. At minimum, it seems that there's an offsite project out there, or at least a body of lore, offering instructions on how to insert articles on minor office software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No strong opinion, but there are (mostly German language) sources on GNews/Books/Scholar if you put a space in the name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I'd also suggest that those who want to keep this article should try to find sources for the awards this software has apparently won. --Chris Johnson (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This verifies awards. Joe Chill (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then Delete All Software. I cant follow the argument of "Ihcoyc", if so, then delete all articles behind the "List_of_project_management_software". BlindzeroMUC (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (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.