Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zing Technologies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zing Technologies

About 500 Googles, many referring to something else. No evidence of market significance. A short list of schools using it, no sign of any real significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We use it the classroom. Most of the other bits of commercial software vendors that we use have pages on Wikipedia, dont see why Zing shouldnt or why it is being singled out here. Article reads vendor neutral. I hope that this doesnt mean we start voting Microsoft, Novell, Sun for deletion or worse still, jump all over all the smaller software vendors. From memory, one of the pages that I wrote was about the worlds first online game called Snipes. The company was a small, insignificant startup but in the cool light of history, their contribution is now more significant. I vote for keep. --RolandG 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google shows 9k hits. Looks fairly widespread on colleges so it probably has 5000 user requirement per WP:SOFTWARE. Monkeyman^(talk) 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The second Google hit is for "Data Zing Technologies" and the third Google hit is for "e-Zing Technologies". '"Zing Technologies" -"data zing" -"e-Zing"' brings back less than 600 hits, most of them redundant. Delete, not notable. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry, I did the same search - I should have said so in the nom. My bad. Just zis Guy you know? 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• 'Probably has 5000 users'? Probably means nothing, I'm afraid. Articles must pass WP:V, this does not. Non-notable, delete. Proto||type 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Using Google as sole means of verification seems a bit weak. It's an interesting example of group support systems. The article needs more detail, rather than deletion. 59.167.78.4 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As the original author of the article I'm obviously biased, but I would like to try and make it conform to wikipedia's policies than see the article deleted. Zing is about more than either the company that produces it, or the software itself. It is also a process for team meeting and learning that gets a group thinking together in parallel, and allows them to record their contributions in their own words using a keyboard. I propose changing the article title to 'Zing Technology' and putting the focus on the technology, process, and facilitation skills rather than the company or the software and incorporate more academic material from the research that's been done. CatS 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per JzG and Zoe.  RasputinAXP  c 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG. Jabencarsey 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. MCB 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Eivind 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• further comment I will rework it to better conform to wikipolicy. Zing is much more widely used than a google search would suggest. A conference on activity theory and action research is being held in Australia in October, and zing is a powerful tool for these areas of research. I feel frustrated by it being marked for deletion and am not clear on how to dispute it. I am possibly the only wikipedian in the zing community, so getting a whole lot of zing people here to defend the page would result in an accusation of sock puppetry, so I really don't know what I should do. I'm happy to work on and improve the article, but I don't feel I can do that while it is marked for deletion. Some constructive criticism has been left on the talk page, and I would like to address and improve the article.--CatS 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Struck duplicate "vote", further commentary is of course perfectly acceptable Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

changed Keep to comment --CatS 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:Software requires at least 5k users for general use software. While specialized software may have less then that, best would be if it fulfilled any other criteria. Returning to the numbers of users-issue: According to the publisher, they have the following customers "

• Universities: Sydney, RMIT, Macquarie, Curtin, Central Queensland, UNSW, Monash for teaching and learning and business studies.
• Consultants: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Managed Innovation and BizKit for BPR, quality, strategy and innovation.
• Government: in Australia: Defence, Queensland Departments of Treasury, Primary Industry and Rail; National Crime Authority, Centrelink for strategy and project teams. Business: Boeing, Pearl, for strategy and innovation.
• Schools: in 100 schools in Australia and the UK for learning, professional development, community activities and education reform." Although we must asume, that this is probably the very max of possible users, it _does_ substantiate the significance case. If your google for "anyzing pdf -wikipedia" you will stumble across several uses of anyzing during workshops and such, mostly in Australia, from 2001 up to 2005 ([1]). Catscracht supplied some links he found at the talk page that do not clearly match the criteria but come close. I don't know about the journals the publications have been printed, but the Alar Jornal seems to be active with an international conference held every 2-3yrs. [2] To summarize my opinion, it seems that the software's notability is indeed limited, but as far as I can see, rather regionally than anything else. In Australia, there seems to be quite frequent use of the software. Since it is not personal software, but rather software for insitutions, it seems explainable that there are not a huge number of google hits. --Johnnyw 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The Zing software system and its associated facilitation processes seem to be a significant instance of group support/team learning. I agree that Google results are unlikely to demonstrate its user base, use or significance. As Zing is specialised software (not personal software) the 5k WP:Software requirement does not apply. The article needs to be cleaned up and I recommend it is re-worked. --Beraht (talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) User's sole edit
• Since this is a tough call regarding the criteria, I let my vote be directed by second thoughts. The first one being Ignore all rules, or citing a statement that expresses this guideline: "We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation (be bold!) at face value." CatS may not be a newcomer at all, but a less frequent then well spirited contributor whose one effort at Wikipedia is the Zing article. Rremoving an article that is or at least comes fairly close to being notable which has a good minded editor and maintainer as a patron seems rather destructive to me; in comparison to keeping an ill-maintained uninformational and badly written article which hardly meets the criteria (even after cleanup). The other thought is: "When in doubt, don't delete." Keep it is. --Johnnyw 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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.