Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planon

Planon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @Stella2707: That is not how we consider notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Stella2707 is the creator of the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]