Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Office 2.0

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. Shella * 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Office 2.0

Office 2.0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Appears to be a neologism. If you notice that the article has one source, that's because there's one person behind the entire idea, organising conferences and all. Also see: WP:NOT crystal ball. --user:Qviri 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Although, maybe it should be deleted. There are only 850000 non Wikipedia/COI ghits. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I get 680 hits based on this link: [1]. This is the last page of the search showing the true amount of hits, with pages about OpenOffice.org and referencing Mr. Ghalimi personally filtered out. Or is my google-fu abandoning me here? Nevertheless, I'm not sure Google is a good way to decide this debate one way or the other. --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's good, except you filtered out the standard buisness nonsense, which includes the phase "Open office". You also filtered out all hits mentioning Ghalimi as the coiner. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. See http://www.office20con.com/profile.html?speaker=Ismael_Ghalimi. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Which part on the page linked tells us that this isn't a neologism coined and promoted by Mr. Ghalimi? --user:Qviri 05:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I was just coming back to add to it. The first link I posted confirms his association with the Office 2.0 conference. The Sponsor list confirms that this is a serious conference. A Google search for "Office 2.0" "Conference" generates 335,000 hits. A Google News search for "Office 2.0" finds several notable media reports from Wired News, PC Magazine, InfoWorld, ZDNet (quoting Microsoft's Ray Ozzie), and Forbes. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Concept seems to be well established, and I'm not sure where else the information would go, but it certainly belongs here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 07:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: quite an established IT concept talked about in the IT media all over the place seemingly these days. Ben W Bell talk 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much needed work, weakly notable. Sr13 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the article could use a rewrite however, as stated by Ben above, strong IT influences can be regarded as some basis for notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cites a website for its source and has tons of google hits. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per avove †he Bread 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is notable and verifiable too no reason for erasure Yuckfoo 02:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Rename I think there should be an article on a "Web office" (ie. this basic concept), but "Office 2.0" is really just a neologism made up to annoy everyone who got so annoyed with "Web 2.0". Only when the concept of a "Web office" is commonly-known as "Office 2.0" (as the concept of a dynamic web is now commonly known as "Web 2.0") should this article be named as such. Also "Office 2.0" would refer to version 2.0 of Microsoft Office, so there is some conflict. —EatMyShortz 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and despise Marketcruft buzzhype rather than considered technological phenomeon that will be still around in three years time, however it is notable, widely accepted and established trash and passes the required tests. The article should be re-written to illustrate that this is a marketing principle, not an established technological phenomenon.•Elomis• 20:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment okies, just put some yards in cleaning the page up to what it really is, I'd like other people to have a look at it however because as a person who would love nothing better than to load marketing spinsters into a cannon and fire them into a wall, the article may have POV problems. •Elomis• 21:28, 21 November 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.