The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Has been PRODded and dePRODded. References all very thin - apparent magazine article appears to be company press release ("Copyright Hydra Management"). Other refs support the facts that it exist, is subsidiary of X, was recommended for purchase 7 years ago by Y. Does not appear sufficiently notable to have an article in the encyclopedia. A similar article appears to have been speedy-deleted G11 soon before the creation of this article - see User talk page on 10th Oct. Pam D 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
We have appeared in many project management magazines over the years but the nature of these is such that the articles are only available to subscribers and hence this content is not available on the internet. We attend the main UK project management trade show ( http://www.projchallenge.com/exhibitor_page.cfm?id=251) and regularly come up against Oracle, CA, and Microsoft and win business over them. Just because there are only a few mentions of us on the public internet does not mean we are not of interest to people using Wikipedia. Along with this our founder Geoff Reiss is now a leading Project Management expert and has written several books on the topic( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gower-Handbook-Programme-Management/dp/0566086034/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-6 and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Management-Demystified-Geoff-Reiss/dp/0415421632/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-1).-- Neil ) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please review the other 130+ articles about similar software and ensure they meet your notability guidelines. In terms of quality of content it would seem to me that having no comparison of products is better than having one which is incomplete. By not allowing the article you are preventing users finding this content yet allowing them to find similar content on other similar providers which is grossly unfair. The WP:OTHERSTUFF rules means there will never be consistency of content on Wikipedia and without consistency the content cannot be trusted to be accurate and complete.-- Neil ( talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Has been PRODded and dePRODded. References all very thin - apparent magazine article appears to be company press release ("Copyright Hydra Management"). Other refs support the facts that it exist, is subsidiary of X, was recommended for purchase 7 years ago by Y. Does not appear sufficiently notable to have an article in the encyclopedia. A similar article appears to have been speedy-deleted G11 soon before the creation of this article - see User talk page on 10th Oct. Pam D 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
We have appeared in many project management magazines over the years but the nature of these is such that the articles are only available to subscribers and hence this content is not available on the internet. We attend the main UK project management trade show ( http://www.projchallenge.com/exhibitor_page.cfm?id=251) and regularly come up against Oracle, CA, and Microsoft and win business over them. Just because there are only a few mentions of us on the public internet does not mean we are not of interest to people using Wikipedia. Along with this our founder Geoff Reiss is now a leading Project Management expert and has written several books on the topic( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gower-Handbook-Programme-Management/dp/0566086034/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-6 and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Management-Demystified-Geoff-Reiss/dp/0415421632/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-1).-- Neil ) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Please review the other 130+ articles about similar software and ensure they meet your notability guidelines. In terms of quality of content it would seem to me that having no comparison of products is better than having one which is incomplete. By not allowing the article you are preventing users finding this content yet allowing them to find similar content on other similar providers which is grossly unfair. The WP:OTHERSTUFF rules means there will never be consistency of content on Wikipedia and without consistency the content cannot be trusted to be accurate and complete.-- Neil ( talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply