Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Since I'm gobsmacked by this close, I'm refactoring the discussion here for my own pleasure to see in, indeed, there was no consensus to delete based upon the arguments presented. Please don't have a hissy phit. - brenneman 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reason summaries

Keep
  1. Over 1000 forum members[citation needed] & over <1000|120,000> downloads [1]
  2. First office suite to be run entirely off the web[citation needed]
  3. Don't see the harm in keeping it
  4. Subject to independent review of software: [2]
  5. Notable[citation needed] and verifiable
Delete / refutation of keep arguments
  1. {notabaility} [sic]
  2. Review consist at least in part of user submitted reviews etc. [3]
  3. Where are the PC Week/Computer Shopper/Datamation/<respectablish ITzine of your choice here> references ?
  4. Nothing in Google news, 166 vanilla Goggle hits [no] non-trivial coverage from a third party.
  5. 146,791 downloads, the 968th most downloaded item at SourceForge, 150 above the Scrolling Game Development Kit but 150 behind Reaper, a "An OpenGL based 3D-game, emphasizing stunning graphics and interesting algorithms. Similiar to Rogue Squadron."
  6. Listing on freshmeat: Freshmeat Popularity: 11.29% (Rank 163). Running at near the same levels are xscreensaver at 162 and GQview at 158

[edit] Delete

[edit] Me

While this article has been vocally defended on several occasions, the baseline for bothWikipedia:Notability (software) and Wikipedia:Notability is the identical phrase "multiple non-trivial published works" which have yet to be provided. The relevant questions appear to be:

  • Do these download figure mean anything,
  • Is the single osnews piece enough/reliable/nontrivial, and
  • Are there other sources that have not been provided?

I feel very strongly that the answers are no, no, and no, and this should be deleted despite the howls of protest unless firm, reliable information can be provided to demonstrate otherwise. Ring the bell, take the gloves off, let the flaming begin.

I've also pinged Redvers and Pschemp as the two most outspoken members of the previous nomination.

brenneman 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Moving on from the ad hominum considering I notified you of this nomination:
    1. Even if we accept that the single osnews piece is from a reliable source, it is not the required multiple published work.
    2. The os news review is by Bob Minvielle (Google) whom appears to be just a guy who wrote in according to their Style Guide: How to Submit Articles, which doesn't appear to match the concept of peer review as I know it.
    3. The review is on a small on-line forum, which is a far-cry from, for example, being reviewed in Wired. There are lots or reviews on OSnews and I don't think you're suggesting that we have articles on all of them.
    4. The Open Source Industry Australia is a de facto press release for the above review, consisting of a forty word precis and a link to OS news. That's forty words out of 1,500, which I am staggered by suggestion that it's anything other than a trivial mention.
    I'm sure that I sound like a broken record here what with asking that the guidelines be followed an all, but I'm simply not seeing the required coverage to demonstrate notability: I'm seeing an article built out of a single review and a lot of passion. It's entirely possible that I'm totally ignorant, but the way to change that is by presenting more facts. This article has been done over this three times now and I still see just the one.
    brenneman 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Others

  • Delete as an utter non-techie (and non-other things that also often crop up on AfDs) I also must look only at the policy involved. Nom (and response above) makes a persuasive case that this simply does not meet the guidelines.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems straightforward. "I like it! I like it!" doesn't trump basic verifiability from reliable sources, and the "keep-because-enough-people-said-'I like it! I like it!'-very-recently" rationales are pure bureaucratic nitpicking. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just about every above reason to keep is invalid and based on either 'I like it', or 'it's been nomninated before!!!'. The topic lacks any evidence of notability, lacking multiple non-trivial references as per WP:WEB. The hand-wringing about 'oh my god, it's been nominated before!! RECENTLY!! are irrelevant. Two months ago is not particularly recent when the article is so fundamentally lacking in evidence for its assertions of notability, and voting 'keep' on procedural grounds because of this is disruptive, and ignorant of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (see that little message at the bottom of the editing window?) The article was only restored at DRV because DRV is a purely head-counting exercise, so is easily subverted, and this has some very dedicated people who want it kept regardless of basic fundamental policy. Proto::► 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone above for failing the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, NOT voting, and the "keepers" have not provided a single stitch of evidence indicating notability and verifiabilty per the required guidelines. Per Proto above, WP:ILIKEIT, hand-waving and arguing the process are not valid keep reasons. Zunaid©® 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Afd 2.0 failed to address the "where is the independent reporting" issue. Nothing has changed. Given the vast volume of dead-tree trade press, to fail to come up with anything on the gnews archive is something of an achievement. Groupware, as a subject, is (or was when I read them) widely discussed in said sources. Nobody is asking for a {{shrubbery}} here. WP:N's multiple-independent-sources is the same yardstick we apply to garage bands, up & coming comedians, etc, etc, and is in line with WP:V. That there are worse articles - and there are, even limiting ourselves to the narrow field of FOSS PHP-driven groupware - doesn't make any difference: WP:INN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm surprised that so many references on the article are not in English. Surely it should be possible to find something to back this up in the English language - this is the English language Wikipedia after all. I'm not persuauded that this article is properly verified and is based on reliable sources. Usually I would suggest giving an article some space to develop but for an articles 3rd nomination this is a pretty serious problem - these weaknesses should have been ironed out after the first nomination. Spartaz 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Where's the WP:RS? SirFozzie 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On balance, I'm a very weak Delete, largely because when I try to follow up the references I don't seem to find enough independent reliable sources. If you can show me more clearly and distinctly where the references are, I'll gladly change my opinion. WMMartin 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep

[edit] Reasons given previously and/or "per above"

  • Keep- This nomination is damn near a violation of POINT and another complete waste of people's time. Surely wikipedia has better things to do than hash this out again. [4] is an independent review from a site which is peer reviewed. Also from Dave Souza the first time - "in May 2004 the online suite was described as "Group-Office 2.2 is such a software entity that is accessible through a web browser and strives to take all of the independent "business office" applications (email, calendars, etc) off the desktop and onto a central location." on Open Source Industry Australia and as "Group-Office 2.2 Pro uses your web browser for the client software." on librenix which links to the previously cited source." pschemp | talk 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above FirefoxMan 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per FirefoxMan --Oakshade 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep .. dave souza, talk 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible keep per all the arguments given previously. Is this article now going to be nominated every three weeks? Are people happy about this, or do you feel that time is being taken away from your other endeavours? BTW, I promised to quit over this, and I have. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hyper strong keep for all the reasons above. TruthCrusader 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bundeled

  • Keep passes the proposed WP:SOFTWARE by item #2 due to its distribution by the FSF, and its inclusion in Gentoo, Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, and Ubuntu distributions. It would be kind of retarded if we approved that page... then had to recreate all pages that pass its standards afterwards. Also according to Alexa rankings it is the 8th most popular web application. Here's the top 8 as listed: <cut> ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination

  • Keep only on the grounds that it is an insult to Wikipedia methology to nominate an article sp soon after a previous AfD. Heck, if you want to do something why not get onto all those articles about Nokia mobile phones? --Michael Johnson 05:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with less rhetoric; Aaron didn't nominate this just out of spite. But this poor little article - which may just be our most inline-cited software article of its size - has been subject to so much excess bureaucracy that a new nomination was clearly going to achieve nothing but a waste of time. Opabinia regalis 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This nomination is an abuse of Afd, as it is being used in place of the non-existant Wikipedia:Keep review. John Vandenberg 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solicited

  • Incredibly strong KEEP What is wrong with us that we want to thrash out the same issue over and over? I think I smell something rotten in the state of Denmark. What do the editors who keep nominating this for deletion have to GAIN from deleting this? Sounds VERY mysterious to me. Once I can understand. Twice a bit iffy. But THREE times in short succession? I am outraged. I cannot believe this. What is the value of attacking someone who means well and who is trying to provide some valuable information about a product people obviously use? I often use Wikipedia as a trusted source to find out a little bit about different software packages. Sure there can be advertising contamination, but the nature of Wikipedia means that it is far less and far more balanced than many other sources; in fact than almost any other source. This really reeks. And I am disgusted that we would be trying to drive away productive members of our community. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Please reconsider what you are doing. Are you really that bent on destructive actions?--Filll 18:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep and salt The appropriateness of the article is obvious. N is clear from the number of the users, aand there are no problems reported with V. The article still had some traces of advertising language, and I removed some. Perhaps other supports can add some of the many reviews instead of just talking about them. Let's improve the article so nobody is absurd enough to try this again. Samsara, come back, you are not without friends. DGG 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naked (expressed elsewhere?)

  • Keep, with salt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You'll find me on the second incarnation. (I misused the term "salt", thinking it only referred to the fact that it had come back again.) In the prior AfD, I convinced myself it was notable based on the definition as I understood it at the time. We're told notability guidelines (when convenient) are only guidelines (to wit, when Diane Farrell got her article long before she met any notability guidelines, when the AfD was overturned based on an IRC chat, without a DRV. Her notability was established *after* she got her article, which she got because "people liked her". I give up on AfD - completely unable to understand what defines notability from one week to the next :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

  • Evidence of major distro inclusion = keep
    Absence of evidence of major distro inclusion = delete+salt    .
    The sole policy-based claims of notability that means anything in all the above seems to be that Alexa reports it as #8, and that it's included in various major linux distros (per WP:SOFTWARE examples of major distros include Debian, Fedora, etc). No evidence is presented for either of these statements so far. Alexa itself is not a neutral source. Although listing on Alexa may be evidence of usage, it's unclear if Alexa mention alone, unsupported by other evidence, is a sufficient evidence for notability. Likewise, if it is included within the named major distributions, can someone paste a few links to the relevant major distro package inclusion listings and then this AFD will pretty much be done. If that's not possible, and lacking evidence of these then I have to agree that Group Office doesn't look at all notable outside its own fan-base and one minor review elsewhere. (And as an aside, references to "Incredibly strong keep" and "Hyper-strong keep" suggest that the responses concerned include emotive views rather than policy based views, tending to support the nominator's interpretation.) Without evidence that this view is significantly wrong, then it looks like it should be deleted - probably with salt since with 3 heated nominations and much ardor for the package, article recreation must be considered a possibility. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticles_for_deletion_Group-Office_%28third_nomination%29_de8c.html"