Pm expert
Speedy deletion nomination of P2ware Planner edit
A tag has been placed on P2ware Planner, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
P2ware Planner edit
Article has been deleted under G4 of WP:CSD, as a large proportion of the page was identical to that in the previous deletion discussion. I have userfied it for you at User:Pm_expert/P2ware_Planner along with its talk page. I would suggest further editing in user space to address the problems of G4 (I have restored all version so you can see the older page in the history), before moving back to Article space. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
More P2ware Planner edit
It seems that the deleted article has already been written to a subpage of your user page. To be perfectly frank, I doubt that the article's subject will ever be notable enough to pass muster, or that non-trade-related publications will ever pay all that much attention to it; notability within some subset of the IT trade community does not really make for general notability. My general opinion is that back office and IT department software that the general public will never interact with falls within the excessive attention side of Wikipedia's inherent bias. And too many editors, seeing that competitors' packages get covered, want one for the one they promote as well. I gather from your handle that you have some sort of stake in the "project management" trade.
That said, you are free to work on the saved versions in your user space, and see if you can come up with broad-readership sources that give in depth coverage to this package. I will be happy to take a look at it, and if I think that the most recent version passes muster for notability, it probably is notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)