Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditGrid

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 was keep. 1ne 06:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EditGrid

A web application still in beta. How many users? Doesn't say. Innovation? Not stated. I see no evidence oa passing WP:SOFTWARE here. Just zis Guy you know? 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The software has been verifiably reported in the Spanish version of PC World[1] (an IDG publication) and the NetworkWorld newsletter[2]. I'll be adding these references shortly. --Pkchan 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • One of those is a non-trivial mention, the other two look like much less substantial coverage and are not in English anyway (this is en: after all). Multiple non-trivial mentions is what we're lokking for here, please. Just zis Guy you know? 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree that the Spanish reference is weak, but the Portuguese one[3] is a product comparison between Google Spreadsheets, EditGrid and another player in this emerging and competitve market of web spreadsheets. And being non-English shouldn't discredit the reference -- isn't Project Systematic Bias about countering the bias in coverage of topics where non-English speakers touch on less often? --Pkchan 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed it is. But JzG's main point was that they appear to be trivial, i.e. that they contain no more information about the subject than could populate an entry in a directory of software products. You're doing the right thing, though: Looking for published works. You'll clearly change JzG's mind if you can find multiple non-trivial ones. Uncle G 16:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I have added some more external references (unforunately they are all non-English). None of them is a dedicated review of EditGrid but, like the one from the Portueguese IDG quoted above, they are (especially the Haaretz one), they are articles devoted to a mid-length comparison between the various players in the online spreadsheet field after Google's entry, and offer far more than trivial mentions in a software directory. --Pkchan 05:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sango123 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spam for a yet to be officially released product --Xrblsnggt 04:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It cannot be counted as unreleased, since many Web 2.0 products name themselves as "Beta" nowadays, even when they are considered released by the general public. See "perpetual beta" in Web 2.0. --Alan Tam 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Gmail and, until recently, Flickr are in beta as well. --Pkchan 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It may not exist yet, but being mentioned in several articles, even if their not in english and thus I can't read them (except kinda the Spanish one), makes it notable. --PresN 05:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Artw 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that Pkchan's citation demonstrated that it is a notable software product. --Alan Tam 09:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC) user's first edit.
• Weak keep per Pkchan, PresN, and Alan Tam. --HResearcher 10:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I have added a couple more references in the article, all of which are from reliable sources. There are also numerous mentions in the blogosphere, as have been listed on this page from the EditGrid site and can be verified by searching at Technorati. I believe that these have satisfied the "multiple non-trivial references" requirement in WP:SOFTWARE. --Pkchan 10:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The references are not from reliable sources. Blogs and your own words are not reliable sources, and a passing one line mention in Ars Technica isn't enough to confer notability, nor does calling your application "Web 2.0." It's just a buzzword.  RasputinAXP  11:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment None of the references quoted in the article are from blogs. The claim of notabiliy also lies in a product review published by Network World as well as product comparison articles published by IDG, Haaretz, and PC World. --Pkchan 11:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it is released, is available, and has been written about. The article is sourced, and doesn't really read like an ad. ONUnicorn 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Surprised to find this page listed for deletion, as I have encountered a few web sites who are already using EditGrid to store and present data (such as [4]). Seems to have addressed the questions posted by nominator above. --John Seward 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Cause I think EditGrid is relevant technology and belongs into an encyclopedia. --Anonymous 14:30, 17 August 2006 (EST)
• Keep. EDITGRID does exist in real life, and thus as with everything existing it deserves an entry in Wiki. I wonder what all the fuss is about deleting it. --Anonymous
• Keep per PKchan. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see any reason to delete this entry anymore. Everything seems in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. There are thousands more entries on Wikipedia that don't comform to the policy, I don't know why this one was particularly hand-picked. --wyuenho
• Comment Just found EditGrid mentioned in print media in a product review of the web spreadsheets in the latest issue, issue 418 of e-zone (who claims to be the no. 1 "computer and digital" magazine in Hong Kong in terms of sales) published on 18th August. I've scanned the relevant pages and uploaded the images to this page for your review during this AfD. The images there will be removed after this AfD due to copyright concern. --John Seward 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - looks like this will be an important piece of software and the article is encyclopaedic. BlueValour 02:26, 22 August 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.