Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-Office (2nd nomination)
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 keep. --bainer (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's notes
It seems that this AfD was closed and then re-opened by some non-admins. Regardless of the propriety of that or otherwise, the AfD has now been open for long enough to attract plenty of participation (following an initial nomination and a DRV; four-and-a-half days total open time) and it's time to close.
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned, in light of new evidence of the program's notability, for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Notable and verifiable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep 146,000 downloads makes this a verifiable and notable article.Diez2 16:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability fully verified. .. dave souza, talk 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:DRV is, sadly, a vote. There is no consensus for this - just a simple majority. The nomination is therefore incorrect in this aspect. Additionally, to stick my neck out, the "votes" above are citing "verifibility" as a reason to keep. My arse is verifiable - independently and with citations, lucky me - but doesn't belong on Wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination. Until something has a greater reason to be kept here than my arse, it shouldn't be kept here automatically. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Sir, may I congratulate you on having such a well-publicised hind quarter, and may it serve you well! However, this discussion deals with notability, and whether such claims of notability previously made are verifiable, which they are. Good day, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yeah, but the above !votes aren't saying that. They're saying that there are two reasons to keep - notability and verifibility. Notability (if established in the article - you might like to edit it to make it clear as it isn't obvious to a lay reader as it stands) is, to a degree, subjective. Verifibility is, however, something that can be measured but is meaningless here. All manner of crap can be verified. All manner of nonsense can be verified. In the Independent UK newspaper last week, a picture had a caption that read "ASDFGHJKLASDFGHJKL ASDFGHJKL". Do we create an article called ASDFGHJKLASDFGHJKL ASDFGHJKL? Coz I can verify it immediately! As I say, I can provide independent, citable sources for my arse. That doesn't allow it to be given as a reason for keeping an article. Really :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just realised that the policy about this that inevitably will follow will now have the shortcut WP:REDVERS'S ARSE. Lovely. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redvers, people went on and on in the DRV about how there were no independent sources, so I really don't see the harm of people pointing out that there now are sources. Besides, everyone has also used the word "notable" in some form, and that *is* a reason to keep. I'm going to just assume that WP:V is your pet peeve and you felt the need to rant. pschemp | talk 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yeah, but the above !votes aren't saying that. They're saying that there are two reasons to keep - notability and verifibility. Notability (if established in the article - you might like to edit it to make it clear as it isn't obvious to a lay reader as it stands) is, to a degree, subjective. Verifibility is, however, something that can be measured but is meaningless here. All manner of crap can be verified. All manner of nonsense can be verified. In the Independent UK newspaper last week, a picture had a caption that read "ASDFGHJKLASDFGHJKL ASDFGHJKL". Do we create an article called ASDFGHJKLASDFGHJKL ASDFGHJKL? Coz I can verify it immediately! As I say, I can provide independent, citable sources for my arse. That doesn't allow it to be given as a reason for keeping an article. Really :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just realised that the policy about this that inevitably will follow will now have the shortcut WP:REDVERS'S ARSE. Lovely. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redvers, what are you going on about? I respect you and usually agree with you but I truly can't figure out what you mean here or why you commented. Notability has also been established and this isn't any less notable than articles on obscure Pokemon. pschemp | talk 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Sir, may I congratulate you on having such a well-publicised hind quarter, and may it serve you well! However, this discussion deals with notability, and whether such claims of notability previously made are verifiable, which they are. Good day, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability and independent sources showing this have been established with the re-write of the article. "procedural relisting" is a bunch of crap considering the outcome of the DRV and the obviousness of the notability. A wonderful example of process wonkism at its best (and a massive waste of time).pschemp | talk 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above (I edit conflicted with you on posting it). In short: people here are saying that this article should be kept because it is verifiable. That alone is not enough - as I say, my bum is verifiable, sadly. I have no issue on the notability of the subject (I haven't !voted here at all), I just have an issue with the downright stupid idea that verifibility is a reason (or an additional reason) to keep an article. I'll keep my bum, but I don't want Wikipedia to do so. Really. Really really. No, really. ;o) And, yeah, you're right: so far we've never disagreed on an AfD and (including this one) we haven't. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I get your point. WP:V is a pet peeve of yours. :) It kind of sounded like you didn't realize that people were also mentioning notability, but ok since everyone ALSO used the word "notable" in some form, that is a reason to keep. What happened here is that on the DRV, one of the reasons people said it should stay deleted was lack of WP:V so forgive the comments here, they are only in reaction to the rant there. pschemp | talk 22:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See above (I edit conflicted with you on posting it). In short: people here are saying that this article should be kept because it is verifiable. That alone is not enough - as I say, my bum is verifiable, sadly. I have no issue on the notability of the subject (I haven't !voted here at all), I just have an issue with the downright stupid idea that verifibility is a reason (or an additional reason) to keep an article. I'll keep my bum, but I don't want Wikipedia to do so. Really. Really really. No, really. ;o) And, yeah, you're right: so far we've never disagreed on an AfD and (including this one) we haven't. ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this. I have no idea why you would want to remove it.--Filll 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per above. Notability, etc.xiliquiernTalk 16:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete2.0 notability is not subjective and all that. Where are the PC Week/Computer Shopper/Datamation/<respectablish ITzine of your choice here> references ? OS News appears blogesque. Anybody can create an open sauce project and publish press releases, and indeed anyone has. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is software for small to medium businesses. It would not be reviewed by those magazines. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SME software does get coverage in industry papers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another AfD is a reliable source for that statement, is it? But since you're bringing it up, I would invite people to compare the article nominated here with Twinfield, which was kept for lack of consensus. (AfD link see Angus above). Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the intention. One article cites trade papers like Accountancy Age and Computer Partner, the other doesn't. One product got the vendor an export award, and an interview on ZDNet.be with the co-founder, the other appears not to have. I think it's clear which is the more reported-on. Granted "group-office" is a pretty common term, but web ghits for "group-office +intermesh" look largely self-referential. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just repeat myself here then from the previous discussion, as the idea that OSNews.com is a reliable source doesn't seem to have established itself. First of all, their instructions for authors are just like those of peer-reviewed papers, which to me makes the case that their quality might be higher than that of "established journals", who have a set of editors who basically write what they feel writing about, and a set of authors, who need to satisfy the tastes of the editors. Secondly, the particular author writing that review has written 28 reviews for OSNews.com, so he is actually quite experienced. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the intention. One article cites trade papers like Accountancy Age and Computer Partner, the other doesn't. One product got the vendor an export award, and an interview on ZDNet.be with the co-founder, the other appears not to have. I think it's clear which is the more reported-on. Granted "group-office" is a pretty common term, but web ghits for "group-office +intermesh" look largely self-referential. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another AfD is a reliable source for that statement, is it? But since you're bringing it up, I would invite people to compare the article nominated here with Twinfield, which was kept for lack of consensus. (AfD link see Angus above). Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SME software does get coverage in industry papers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is software for small to medium businesses. It would not be reviewed by those magazines. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While the software inclusion guideline is only proposed at this stage, it is largely consistant with other notability guidelines, and requires non-trivial coverage. There are many claims to notability above, however barring Diez2's none of these do have falsifiability and testimony from wikipedia editors is not a reliable source.
- None of the links in the article currently demonstrate notability, there is nothing in Google news about this, and none of the first 166 vanilla Goggle hits are non-trivial coverage from a third party.
- Looking at the 146,791 downloads, that makes it 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."
- It magazines certainly do cover software for small to medium businesses. Here is an (admitedly very small) article on a small busniess productin PC world it took thirty seconds to find, here is a lengthy article from Wired about "an open-source success story." The reason that there is not coverage is perhaps not that these magazines don't cover "notable" software of this type, but that Group-Office is simply not notable.
- In the absence of any demonstration of notability, and with the only metric given as number of downloads being very thin indeed, this article should at the very least be userfied until such a time as its subject can meet the (proposed!) guidelines.
- 152.91.9.144 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed indeed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Following a non-admin close, this debate has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. 152.91.9.144 23:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable. Sandy (Talk) 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As nicely as possible, this comment really doesn't move the discussion forward. Why do you say it's notable, based upon what evidence, etc. I've clearly outlined my reasoning as to why I think it's not, and this is not a vote.
152.91.9.144 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As nicely as possible, this comment really doesn't move the discussion forward. Why do you say it's notable, based upon what evidence, etc. I've clearly outlined my reasoning as to why I think it's not, and this is not a vote.
- 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.