Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Spreadsheet

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 delete. since the only sourcing provided is a mention in the context of something else this has no verifiable content to merge but there are no objections to someone setting up a redirect afterwards Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Spreadsheet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Merge. Per Pohta ce-am pohtit below (thanks for locating that other article I had not noticed), the Simple Groupware product is a larger set of tools that includes Simple Spreadsheet. None of the individual tools needs long enough description for a separate article, but they do merit coverage on WP. Very active discussion on a Google Group indicates sufficient community knowledge and interest for notability. LotLE×talk 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just so cute, Joe Chill, how you follow me around on AfD, claiming that every indication of notability of a topic magically doesn't count, no matter how prominent... and that the only criteria should be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which prompts deletion of all software articles. LotLE×talk 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Follow you around? I started this nomination and I don't follow anyone around! Where does it say in WP:N that being discussed a lot on Google Groups is a criteria for notability? Or that free software is a criteria for notability which you also said before? How does using notability guidelines instead of ignoring them equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Joe, it is pretty obvious that this person is goading you. Don't feed the trolls. JBsupreme (talk) 06:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uhh, Lulu, please don't start crying wolf here, that's quite unnecessary. If something is not notable, it simply isn't notable. Most of us navigate via categories and through deletion sorting channels. Sadly, there is much to be cleaned up around here. Reason for deletion is the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google groups is not a source. Miami33139 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per LotLE’s vote above Samboy (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Groups isn't a reliable source. Joe Chill (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clearly a disruptive vote. Miami33139 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - C'mon WP:AGF! You have expressed your !vote perfectly well, raging with accusations (or even retorts) against everyone who disagrees in their opinion is not constructive or cooperative. LotLE×talk 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Simple Groupware. This is just a module of that product by the same company (equally uninspired title if I may say so—it took me a while to find), but the larger product is reviewed in linux.com and included in a round-up in Linux Magazine (both reviews mention the spreadsheet, e.g. saying that it's "arguably on a par with the similar application from Google"). Pcap ping 16:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.