Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plandora

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Plandora}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Plandora}})

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
• Changed to keep and revert to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plandora&oldid=1268124326 this diff]. Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:

  Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.

  As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:

  Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.

  I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• Changed to keep and revert to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plandora&oldid=1268124326 this diff] per the significant coverage found by HyperAccelerated below. Thank you for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the {{user|Alberto.pereto}} who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Keep and revert to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plandora&oldid=1268124326 this diff]. I don't think the travel application is notable, but the project management software has been the subject of several studies: see [https://csnagy.github.io/research/pdfs/2017/Nagy-SCAM2017.pdf here], [https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=3ab44350799596c9337c34bad9801487fee3c247 here], and [https://www.scitepress.org/PublishedPapers/2016/59744/59744.pdf here]. It's not a lot, but I do believe that collectively this establishes that this meets WP: GNG, albeit barely. I think we should revert procedurally, because we can disambiguate pages rather than hijack them, but since this AfD is open, I do worry that reverting now might confuse other people who want to participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::These sources aren't really studying Plandora, they're using it as a testcase for the actual tools they're studying. I can't extract any significant coverage from these sources that can be used in the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::It still counts as WP: SIGCOV. The threshold is "more than a trivial mention". These papers give software quality metrics about the code of Plandora, which is more than a trivial mention. You might find the content of these sources uninteresting, but the question we're here to discuss is whether significant coverage exists, and IMO the answer is clearly yes. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::@HyperAccelerated Significant coverage should address the topic {{tq|directly and in detail}}. These sources only indirectly cover Plandora, since the coverage focuses on evaluation of their experimental tools rather than evaluation of Plandora. In the first two sources, the coverage of Plandora is nothing more than raw data, which is definitely not significant. The third source contains more mentions, but it still isn't coverage of Plandora itself, it's coverage of whether the authors' SQL translation mechanism works on an example database. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The use of these experimental tools produce metrics about Plandora. That is significant coverage, because these metrics give detail beyond a trivial mention. The papers are primarily about new tools, but significant coverage does not necessitate that the subject be the main topic. I also disagree that any of these papers even present "raw data"; that argument might apply if the papers consisted of large copy-pastes of Plandora source code. What is happening is that the authors are describing their methodology in detail and then describing the application of that method to analyze Plandora's codebase. It does not matter whether that analysis is automated or manual -- the presence of this analysis alone establishes significant coverage. In any case, thanks for reading the sources, but I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::I appreciate your perspective, even though we disagree. Thanks for the discussion! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete. I've looked at the three papers linked above, it looks like only the first one has real sigcov (about five paragraphs describing Plandora in the Usage Examples section). The other two papers only use Plandora to test various other things. The second paper only gives some statistics, it is unclear to me whether these are their experimental data or actually innate to Plandora. The third paper describes in great detail what the researchers did to Plandora but not what Plandora is or does. In my opinion, the latter two papers don't count towards the GNG. The last revision of the article before the hijacking doesn't have any good sources either, so I land on the delete side here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The usage section in the first paper doesn't even describe Plandora; it describes the authors' code analysis tool and briefly mentions the Plandora source code as an example input. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete per WP:NSOFT. The current iteration of the article doesn't even assert notability at all - just mere existence. -- Y not? 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.