Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.ho.st

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Daniel 05:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] G.ho.st

G.ho.st (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has been speedy deleted several times, without ever having had an AfD. DRV restored the article, finding an assertion of notability, and finding prior CSD G4 speedy deletions invalid (since there was no governing AfD.) Still, Delete, as the only sources are unreliable, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Reliable sources: [1] [2] [3] JulesH 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep That first ref above is a feature article at InfoWord: "Can Ghost scare Microsoft?" DGG (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete All 'references' seem to contain lots of speculation. As of yet it does nothing particulary notable. Ian¹³/t 18:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD notice was removed from the article on 8/7 [4]. Now restored. Ian¹³/t 14:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makes no attempt to establish any form of notability. Vegaswikian 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. First let me disclose my relationship to G.ho.st. Re. notability G.ho.st has received serious reviews in mainstream press InfoWorld, RedHerring, TechRepbulic, PC World Canada, local mainstream newspapers from the Jerusalem Post to the Times of of India, and many others. It has been covered in thousands of blogs. Googling "G.ho.st" returns 120,000 relevant hits. G.ho.st won one of ten ComputerWorld Horizon awards this year (to be officially announced in August). G.ho.st has been selected to present at Innovate!Europe and other conferences. There are tens of thousands of users growing daily. All competitors have Wikipedia articles. As well as technology and market we have a fairly unique social aspect with a joint Israeli-Palestinian team. I am big fan of Wikipedia and would not want to in any way reduce its qualify but I am not quite clear what more needs to be done to establish notability and would appreciate advice on that point. Thanks for everyone's consideration Zvis 20:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
    Note: Just to make it clear to closing admin: this user is connected to the article's subject. Ian¹³/t 21:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. G.ho.st seems like a perfectly reasonable entry to keep in an encyclopedia given their notoriety in the web2.0 world for both their product, approach and team. This is a growing area of services and would seem foolish to not include it.--Sdemw 11:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    Note: First edit from this account. Ian¹³/t 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Week Keep Seems barely notable, I am sort of reluctant in this one. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. While the webtop space is in its infancy, it garners considerable attention from the blogosphere, the venture capital community and large software companies. If successful, webtops could finalize the internet and web-services revolution. I think it is a space worth tracking, and G.ho.st is certainly a notable company within the space. OriW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.217.9 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment This refers to Zvis comment made. Refering to WP:BIGNUMBER, we can't really say we should keep an article because it has 120,000 relevant hits on google, also see WP:GOOGLEHITS, just because the site gets lots of hits on google doesn't automaticaly make it relevant and useful in wikipedia --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as there are sufficient non-trivial sources which demonstrate notability of this subject. (jarbarf) 03:29, 14 July 2007 (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.