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 delete.  Sandstein  16:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply

5pm

5pm (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

G11 worthy material Pyrusca ( talk) 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- was recently deleted via PROD for lack of notability. This new version does not show any notability either. K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • (1) It wasn't deleted for "lack of notability", it was deleted because no one removed the PROD.  (2) As per this diff, you prodded the article.  Since WP:N is defined outside of Wikipedia and WP:N is not a content guideline, the reason for the prod was not policy based.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this has literally been deleted 5 times including for G11 so this seriously should not have been restarted, as the current information and sources are still advertising. I am also concerned with the fact the user specifically contested the PROD a month after, suggesting it's persistent and avid advertising, because not only considering all of these deletions, they actually moved this advertisement to mainspace themselves with "will improve in time"; if this has been deleted numerous times before, it should've been salted with this last time as it is, because 2 G11 deletions in the past 9 years is self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Getting a WP:Refund does not suggest "persistent and avid advertising" to most editors.  The count of deletions here means nothing, especially when you've reported two G11s when there was only one, and that one was by an administrator who is no longer an administrator, by Arbcom decision.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
Who decides what software ends up in this list or not: /info/en/?search=Comparison_of_project_management_software ? I was just trying to keep the list complete. I used many project management tools over time, some of them listed there, including 5pm. I am not an expert though. If you want to help improve the article, change the language, etc. - please do. By keeping the list of project management software up to date and including in it tools tested by time, we are making that list more usable to the others. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? NancyJeanGF ( talk) 15:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. not notable: Potential references include some trivial reviews and listings only. NancyJeanGF, WP is is intended to be useful as an encyclopedia , not as a list of computer software. That's one of our core principles: WP:NOT. The article Comparison of project management software, is limited to those programs notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia. It is certainly possible that some ofthem should not be included,andthe way to getthem off the list is for the article to be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Compare with your decision to declare this article ready for mainspace and to give it its current name, [1].  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep "Trivial reviews and listings only"? I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I tried to include only solid sources. This is not the first article that I created and that was deleted. When I was researching analytics software, I wrote about Mixpanel and Localytics. Those are direct competitors and I thought it is only fair to cover both. Localytics article was deleted - somebody decided it was "lacking notoriety". Today a simple search shows that the company has about 250 employees and is mentioned as a solid growing business in Boston. I bet if I try to recreate the article - I will be accused of reviving it, as in this case. I do not know who created the previous 5pm article, and it sounds like they did, since it was deleted before. After all, 5pm has been in business for over eight years, according to their website. I did not use it for so long, but it as good as any other web software I tried. The list of their featured clients confirms that. It looks like 5pm is popular among EDUs and non-profits (like mine): http://www.5pmweb.com/pm_for_edu.php, http://www.5pmweb.com/pm_for_org.php. I do not see any project management expert here making a point against it. I find the calls for this article deletion very random and coming from people not involved in project management. Decisions are based on personal opinions on what reviews are solid and what are "trivial". Are PC World, Venturebeat, Mashable and Microsoft not reliable sources anymore? As a novice Wikipedia contributor, I find this attitude very discouraging. We want to encourage new Wikipedia contributors. I suggest we should seek other opinions, from people related to project management. If Wikipedia lists project management software, 5pm has a right to be listed as well, among all others. NancyJeanGF ( talk) 14:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
See WP:OSE, not only is that unconvincing for the relevance of this article, but nothing above is actually satisfying any notability or otherwise convincing of it; the sources are in fact trivial mentions and listings because they even only include what the company says about itself. Also, "it's popular" followed by a link to their own website is not convincing, therefore my claims of "trivial mentions and listings" still applies if all that is available is their own website.
Localytics was deleted because it was both an advertisment and unconvincing for notability so claiming it is now "Today a simple search shows that the company has about 250 employees and is mentioned as a solid growing business in Boston", that's not substantiating the still-deleted article with actual substance and news, and not something the company published such as PR, interviews, company finances, etc. Simply because a company exists is also not actual significance either. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  Here is an excerpt from an old version of the article:
Critical Reception
  • PC World - "Easy, Customizable Project Management" [3]
  • Awarded 5 Stars and included in "Good Gear Guide" by PC World Australia. [6]
  • Awarded 5 stars by iTunes [8]
Other references from that article: [9] [10]

References

  1. ^ "5pm - Project Management on Time". CNet - Download.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  2. ^ "QG Software 5pm review". PC Advisor UK. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  3. ^ "5pm: Easy, Customizable Project Management". PC World. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  4. ^ "5pm - Project Management and Team Collabotation". Google Apps. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  5. ^ "5pm Software Review: Overview – Features – Pricing". Ojwango Mwai. Project Management.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  6. ^ "Good Gear Guide". PC World Australia. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  7. ^ "5pm review". Tech World. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  8. ^ "5pm - Project Management on Time". iTunes. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  9. ^ Morochove, Richard. "5pmweb project management on line and on time". ProjectManagementBestSoftware.com. Retrieved 2013-01-09.
  10. ^ "Like 5pm Tool for Project Management? – iPhone Edition Launched!". Agile Scout. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
Unscintillating ( talk) 03:35, 6 November 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/5pm&oldid=1089511937"