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

message: 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)

message: ==== 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)
thread_title: Delete 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Me 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Others 

message: === 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.  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)
thread_title:  Keep 

message: *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.  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)
thread_title:  Reasons given previously and/or "per above" 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Bundeled 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Renomination 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Solicited 

message: *Keep, with salt.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked (expressed elsewhere?) 

message: * Evidence of major distro inclusion = keepAbsence 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)
thread_title:  Other