Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProjectPartner
- 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. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- ProjectPartner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested proposed deletion. This article about a business making non-consumer software is first and foremost unambiguous advertising. The article contains little information other than a feature list, and shilling telling you how this helps you make money and is a great investment opportunity to boot. For instance:
- The Flash user interface and Flex-driven SaaS platform mean that anyone with an Internet connection and web browser can use ProjectPartner.
- In keeping with the underlying objective of project management software, this dashboard reporting allows managers to track profit margins and manage resources more efficiently.
- The SaaS business model, coupled with Adobe Flex-based development, will ensure ongoing growth for the company and opportunities for investors.
Notability for this business may also be dubious, but given the obvious promotional tone this is a side issue. The Computerworld pieces cited are either not chiefly about this business, or would appear to be based on press releases announcing a change in business models. They are all from computing and IT trade publications, and don't suggest that this package is on its way to becoming a household name. But even if this software or business could support an article, this text is not that article. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - no assertion of notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- 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.