Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planon

{{AFD help}}

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

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

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Thanks for your comment! I totally get that not every business belongs on Wikipedia, but I think Planon is notable enough to warrant an entry. Why?
• :Market Leader: Last week, Planon was named the #1 company in its field by Verdantix, an independent research firm (for the fourth time, just added that source to the page as well). That kind of recognition shows it’s not just another random company .
• :Strategic Role: Planon’s acquisition by Schneider Electric and its partnership with SAP also proves it’s not just another business but a strategic one in the industry.
• :The acquisition by SE also got decent media attention (which was not only about Planon but also highlighted its competitors like Spacewell, MRI and AppFolio, showing where it fits in the industry).
• :I’ve also shared more background and sources on the Talk page beforehand if you’d like to check those out. Hope this clears things up a bit—happy to discuss further if you have other concerns! Stella2707 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{ping|Stella2707}} That is not how we consider notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Note that Stella2707 is the creator of the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Weak keep (note: I approved this article at AfC): Reference 3 and references 8-10 (in combination) should count for independent coverage, unless I completely misunderstand the quality/reliability of these sources. I agree this is a borderline case, but there is some coverage there beyond "this company announced X today", and the article isn't overly promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Delete: This shouldn't have passed AfC, at least in its current state. The sources largely look like press releases and routine coverage, neither of which can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: Both the Gartner and Verdantix analyst reports are based on independent research and are widely considered credible sources. These reports are recognized as two of the most important publications for Integrated Workplace Management Systems (as noted in the IWMS Wikipedia entry). The recognition as a market leader in these reports makes it sufficiently notable and reliable for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Stella2707 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - An article for this company exists on Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planon.

:Seems to be a lot more information there, might be worth looking if the sources there establish notability. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Keep: I still think this page should be kept, [removed double !vote] and I have also added more sources, including ones mentioned in the more detailed Dutch Wikipedia entry.

::I believe that Gartner and Verdantix naming Planon as a market leader are strong, independent indicators of notability. These reports are widely respected in the industry and are even referenced as trusted benchmarks on the IWMS page. If these reports are considered reliable for establishing notability on the IWMS page, I don’t see why they wouldn’t hold the same weight here. Stella2707 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You are not allowed to issue multiple !votes in the same discussion. It is highly disruptive behavior that makes discussions more difficult to follow. With that being said, can you identify two sources that you have added that establish that the company meets WP: NCORP? Please keep in mind that most press releases do not establish notability under WP: ORGTRIV and that the notability guidelines on the Dutch Wikipedia are not the same as the guidelines here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I thought we'd start a whole new vote here - thanks for deleting.

::::The sources I added are the ones from Het Financieele Dagblad, [https://www.verdantix.com/report/green-quadrant-connected-portfolio-intelligence-platforms-cpip-iwms-2025 Verdantix] & [https://www.gelderlander.nl/wijchen/pierre-guelen-bouwde-zijn-eenmanszaak-uit-tot-wereldspeler-en-krijgt-een-bijzonder-lintje~a1bfe9fb/ De Gelderlander] (#13, 8, 5 in the list of references). Stella2707 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::FD is probably routine coverage, because it's sourced to an unnamed "editor". The Verdantix source and De Gelderlander are behind paywalls, so unless you can provide a copy of the articles or quotations that show significant coverage, this doesn't count. Remember that the onus is on you to show significant coverage, not the other way around. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here's an excerpt of 'De Gelderlander' article (original is in Dutch):

::::::Pierre Guelen expanded his one-man business into a global player and receives a prestigious honor

::::::Pierre Guelen from Wijchen was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau on Saturday evening. This royal decoration is awarded for exceptional achievements with an international impact or significant national influence.

::::::Job van der Meer | 26-05-24, 16:12

::::::The company Planon, which Guelen founded as a one-man business in 1982, has grown into an enterprise with fifteen offices worldwide and approximately 1,000 employees. His first project involved writing software for the maintenance plan of Philips' Nijmegen location. Over forty years later, his software for smart and sustainable building management is now being used in 40 countries.

::::::And here from Verdantix:

::::::Green Quadrant: Connected Portfolio Intelligence Platforms (CPIP/IWMS) 2025

::::::By Joy Trinquet With Claire Stephens January 2025

::::::This report provides a detailed, fact-based comparison of the 12 most prominent connected portfolio intelligence platform (CPIP)/integrated workplace management system (IWMS) software providers in the market. Based on the proprietary Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology, our analysis comprised two-and-a-half-hour live product demonstrations with pre-set scenarios, desk research and vendor responses to a 184-point questionnaire covering eight technical, nine functional and eight market momentum categories. We also conducted interviews with 17 software users and reviewed the data from our global survey of 303 corporate real estate and facilities management executives. Verdantix analysis finds that vendors are transitioning from legacy IWMS solutions to CPIP offerings to meet customer demand for greater data integration and analytics. Among the firms analysed in this study, eight providers – Planon, IBM, Eptura, MRI Software, Tango, Johnson Controls, Spacewell-Nemetschek and Nuvolo – demonstrated leading CPIP/IWMS capabilities.

::::::....

::::::In the Green Quadrant analysis, Planon is the highest performer, achieving an aggregate score of 2.2/3.0 on the capabilities axis and a score of 2.4/3.0 on the momentum axis. Planon has remained in the Leaders’ Quadrant since Verdantix first ran the IWMS Green Quadrant report in 2017.

::::::..... Stella2707 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::None of those quotations do anything to establish notability. As I stated above, please read WP: ORGTRIV. Routine coverage, such as the receiving of non-notable awards, and trivial mentions do not establish the notability of any subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In my opinion, these sources aren’t “trivial coverage,” and I also don’t think the award is non-notable — if it was, it probably wouldn’t have its own Wikipedia page, right?

::::::::I’d also argue that these articles fall under the category of WP:SUBSTANTIAL. They are independent pieces that discuss partnerships and acquisitions, highlighting their impact on the industry while also referencing competitors:

::::::::* [https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/schneider-electric-and-planon-s-extended-partnership-will-help-firms-get-better-value-from-iot-data-in-facilities-workflows Schneider Electric and Planon’s Extended Partnership Will Help Firms Get Better Value from IoT Data in Facilities Workflows] (already added as source)

::::::::Haven't added those sources yet:

::::::::* [https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/a-win-win-partnership-as-sap-and-planon-partner-to-address-pain-points-in-corporate-and-commercial-real-estate-management A Win-Win Partnership as SAP and Planon Partner to Address Pain Points in Corporate and Commercial Real Estate Management]

::::::::* [https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/planon-s-acquisition-of-reasult-will-expand-its-reach-across-the-real-estate-market Planon’s Acquisition of Reasult Will Expand Its Reach Across the Real Estate Market]

::::::::When setting up the page, I also looked at similar pages like TopDesk, Nemetschek and MRI Software. It would be really helpful to know which of the sources on those pages are considered notable so I can try to find comparable ones for the Planon entry. Stella2707 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::You are wrong on every count. As I very clearly stated above, Dutch Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different notability standards. The existence of an article also doesn't imply that its subject is notable. Plenty of articles are created about non-notable topics, such as the one we're discussing right now. It is also clear that you are either unable or unwilling to read the policies that I have cited because WP: NCORP clearly states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as ... the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel [and] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." do not establish notability. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you have read these policies. You are wasting valuable volunteer time by ignoring them. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks for your response. I have read the policies and still none of my sources fall under hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, nor are they standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, or mergers. Instead, they analyze and discuss the acquisition and its industry impact - but anyways:

::::::::::My goal is not to waste anyone’s time — I want to improve the entry. That’s why I’d really appreciate feedback on my earlier question: which sources on similar (English!) pages are considered notable? That way, I can focus on finding comparable ones. I’m not here to argue, just to learn and contribute constructively.

::::::::::I’ll leave it here for now but would appreciate any feedback from you or others. Stella2707 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Keep, Planon is very widely used, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of our article, which is conveying quite simple and non-promotional information. The sourcing is about as good as you'd expect for this class of company. But from the perspective of common sense, it's quite likely that a reader who has come across planon at work might be curious as to its origins, and it's the fundamental job of an encyclopedic site such as our own to help them find out more. What conceivable benefit is there in deciding not to tell them? Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a discussion about whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not a soapbox for you to ponder the philosophical meanings of deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|HyperAccelerated}} that was a bit unnecessary and felt like a personal attack. To clarify: my keep is based on my belief that, by the standards of its peers, Planon is notable and sourced. I appreciate that it's sourced largely to business-like places rather than major newspapers/magazines, but that's in the nature of this sort of product/business. I do, however, feel it's appropriate to base my viewpoints on what I believe an encyclopedia should be, because the very first words at WP:5 (the five pillars of wikipedia) are "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"; there is nothing more core than that. Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not personally attacking you; I'm merely pointing out that you haven't made a complete argument. We need reliable sources in order to make an article encyclopedic, and there is no carveout for your favorite companies. I suggest you try to find better sources instead of trying to convince me that WP: GNG says something it doesn't. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|the standards of its peers}} is not supported by our WP:NORG policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: Sourcing is PR items, which is about what I find. This seems promo. Articles about them joining with other companies don't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not great but is far from TNT. As pointed out above, the subject passes NCORP. More references are available on Nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 3 February 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.