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

Add links
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. -Docg 01:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agonised over this. And changed my mind twice. But there is no consensus to delete. It seems that the existence of the thing is verifiable. Thus the barebones of WP:V are satisfied. What isn't satisfied, is reliable sources that indicate notability. But ultimately WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines. They indicate what wikipedia tends to keep or delete. They are descriptive not prescriptive. Unlike WP:V and WP:NPOV they do not trump consensus. It may well be, that this is the type of thing wikipedia tends to delete. It may well be that keeping it is inconsistent. But, that consideration is not enough to force a deletion in the absence of consensus. Brenneman made a good case, and frustratingly, many of the keepers focused on the re-nomination rather than refuting its reasoning (bad!). But, on the other hand, I take Pschemp's point (and she did give reasons) that many of the keepers have previously given reasons. Brenneman's case for deletion is very strong, but the article does not appear to breach WP:V, and so it comes down to consensus. Brenneman has been unable to persuade a consensus of Wikipedians that the article should be deleted--Docg 01:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group-Office[edit]

Group-Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been nominated and deleted, deletion reviewed and restored, renominated, opened and closed a few times by non-admins, and closed as keep:

To recap (e.g. cut-and-paste) the arguments from the various venues:
Keep
  • Over 1000 forum members[citation needed] & over <1000|120,000> downloads [1]
  • First office suite to be run entirely off the web[citation needed]
  • Don't see the harm in keeping it
  • Subject to independent review of software: [2]
  • Notable[citation needed] and verifiable
Delete / refutation of keep arguments
  • {notabaility}
  • Review consist at least in part of user submitted reviews etc. [3]
  • Where are the PC Week/Computer Shopper/Datamation/<respectablish ITzine of your choice here> references ?
  • Nothing in Google news, 166 vanilla Goggle hits [no] non-trivial coverage from a third party.
  • 146,791 downloads, 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."

The listing on freshmeat was also mentioned, but looking at the Freshmeat Popularity: 11.29% (Rank 163) this places it pretty far down the list, noting that Ghost for Linux and bash programmable completion are numbers 50 and 49 and are both red links. (Caveat of course that that a poor metric.) Running at near the same levels of popularity on Freshmeat are xscreensaver at 162 and GQview at 158. Damned with faint praise indeed.

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)[reply]

  • 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. [4] 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)[reply]
    Moving on from the ad hominum considering I notified you of this nomination:
    1. Even if we accept that the single osnews piece is from a reliable source, it is not the required multiple published work.
    2. The os news review is by Bob Minvielle (Google) whom appears to be just a guy who wrote in according to their Style Guide: How to Submit Articles, which doesn't appear to match the concept of peer review as I know it.
    3. The review is on a small on-line forum, which is a far-cry from, for example, being reviewed in Wired. There are lots or reviews on OSnews and I don't think you're suggesting that we have articles on all of them.
    4. The Open Source Industry Australia is a de facto press release for the above review, consisting of a forty word precis and a link to OS news. That's forty words out of 1,500, which I am staggered by suggestion that it's anything other than a trivial mention.
    I'm sure that I sound like a broken record here what with asking that the guidelines be followed an all, but I'm simply not seeing the required coverage to demonstrate notability: I'm seeing an article built out of a single review and a lot of passion. It's entirely possible that I'm totally ignorant, but the way to change that is by presenting more facts. This article has been done over this three times now and I still see just the one.
    brenneman 23:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above FirefoxMan 17:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Note: While I'm not personally sure of the notability of the subject, I would like to register my beleif that process should be respected unless there was clearly an error. As I can see valid points both ways, I have no opinion, however. Wintermut3 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • note to the above note Someone expressed some confusion with my statement, so I guess I should clarify. I guess I can see how this may be seen as non-notable. However, it has passed an overturn at deletion review, and has apparently been nominated a few times since. This indicates to me that there is no clear community consensus on the topic, and that this is likely a content dispute that might be better worked out on a talk page than a deletion debate. Once something has been through the ringer once, I feel it is usually superfluous to re-nominate, though I can understand in this case there is some confusion over the actual consensus, so I don't hold any prejudice against the nominator, the topic may indeed be questionable enough that it warrents debate. The above statement was intended to state my belief that without a substantial reason for changing our collective minds, we should let it stand, otherwise we run the risk of endless AfD rounds that could get tiresome. Again, that's the general principle, in this case I'm not sure which takes precidence, a questionably notable topic or the prior case history. Wintermut3 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're saying, but in general I try to keep in mind that wikipedia's idea of "consensus" is often the comments of less than a dozen editors. Lots of stuff gets nominated and the discussion gets flooded by people from a message board, or policy gets blatantly ignored, or an admin closes too early, etc. etc. I have nominated several tenacious articles for deletion that had survived multiple previous attempts and I'll probably do it again.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what you mean, many times I've been rather stunned by the weight given to WP:ILIKEIT votes when determining 'consensus'. And as a further comment, I hope you don't interpret my comment above as overly critical of the nomination, I can definately see where you're coming from. Wintermut3 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep per all the arguments given previously. Is this article now going to be nominated every three weeks? Are people happy about this, or do you feel that time is being taken away from your other endeavours? BTW, I promised to quit over this, and I have. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment As a disinterested party, I am wondering why Wikipedia's rules and policies even permit an article to be renominated for deletion less than two months after a previous AfD vote was closed with a keep. At best, this nomination is questionable; at worst, it is destructive and disruptive. IMO those who are in favor of deleting this article should accept and respect the consensus of the most recent AfD for the time being. The time is definitely not ripe for a new nomination. --Tkynerd 19:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and salt The appropriateness of the article is obvious. N is clear from the number of the users, aand there are no problems reported with V. The article still had some traces of advertising language, and I removed some. Perhaps other supports can add some of the many reviews instead of just talking about them. Let's improve the article so nobody is absurd enough to try this again. Samsara, come back, you are not without friends. DGG 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This nomination is an abuse of Afd, as it is being used in place of the non-existant Wikipedia:Keep review. John Vandenberg 00:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyper strong keep for all the reasons above. TruthCrusader 01:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with less rhetoric; Aaron didn't nominate this just out of spite. But this poor little article - which may just be our most inline-cited software article of its size - has been subject to so much excess bureaucracy that a new nomination was clearly going to achieve nothing but a waste of time. Opabinia regalis 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am absolutley unapologetic over renominating this article. It has no serious claim to notability, no citations from reliable sources, and despite it's many rounds through deletion discussions appears to continue to be defended based upon totally spurious grounds:
  • "I promised to quit"
  • "product people obviously use"
  • "this nomination is questionable"
  • "number of the users"
  • "abuse of Afd"
  • "keep"s without rational X 2
Simply having a lot of inline citations doesn't solve the problem that this "little piece of software" appears from the evidence presented to be less article-worthy that "Reaper, a An OpenGL based 3D-game, emphasizing stunning graphics and interesting algorithms." or "GQview, an image viewer for X windows." If there were serious arguments presented that this satisfied our well-established guidelines, than this could concieveable come down to "consensus" via counting noses. But there are not, just a lot of shrieking. There has been very little effort to even rebut the deletion arguments, mostly just they are ignored. There may be some people involved here who should be ashamed, but it bloody well isn't me.
brenneman 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep .. dave souza, talk 23:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with salt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd ask that the tone of the two spam notices I made (one to each of the main contenders for deletion and keepation) be compared to the two "OMG KEEP THIS!" canvassing notes: [5][6], and that the last two naked "keep" votes are perhaps responding to "marshall[ing of] forces" [7]. - brenneman 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You almost had me considering whether you might be right about the article itself, until you signally failed to WP:AGF with this last addition (not to mention that it amounts to an ad hominem attack, something you accused someone else of above). I, in turn, can no longer WP:AGF about this renomination. It's just ridiculous. --Tkynerd 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you bloody kidding me? I'm the one who's failed to assume good faith? Yeah, it's my "commercially motivated interests" that are coming to the fore here, nothing at all to do with sources, citations, or the bloody writing on the wall: It's not failing to assume good faith when someone throws a hissy fit and then a couple of blow-in voters just happen to use the talk page of the person who throws the hissy fit. - brenneman 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that requires comment. --Tkynerd 01:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over the AGF line, brenneman. Glad you asked for a review of this at AN/I, because it's warranted.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations against the nominator are patently absurd. Given that virtually ever keep comment has accused him of bad faith without even offering a defense of the article, accusing him of bad faith for pointing out vote canvasing is quite an insult. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A) It may be a little early to renominate this. B) While Mr. Brenneman may come off a tad too overzealous in this discussion, I can certainly understand his frustrations, as he presented a perfectly valid argument for deletion only to be met with several unfair statements and accusations regarding the deletion. C) This appears to be something that is being retained per "I like it," which I'm starting to notice isn't really all that uncommon, however D) I abstain from officially opining because I think what's needed here is for everyone to just step back, allow this article to have sufficient time to develop before renomination, on the condition that E) Rather than simply asserting how notable this is and waving hands at the deletion, perhaps people can work to improve and source the article per Wikipedia policy. If this is done, then there will not be a need for further nominations ever. If this is not done, however, then F) I resent the idea of "salting" this as it really goes in the face of ideas about bold editing, changing consensus, and, though perhaps biased, does not give due credit to someone with a very good history of sensible Wikipedia editing. GassyGuy 02:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable (especially the part about allowing the article to develop). I don't actually know what "salting" means, and Wiki doesn't cough it up, so I'm not sure what that fuss is about - apologizing for using a term without knowing its usage, that was stupid - I've seen it used when something keeps coming back, again and again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salting is usually meant as a form of page protection. I've never seen it use for keep pages before; it usually refers to the page that happens after something has been deleted multiple times. It results in that page that says something like "Wikipedia does not have an article on..." etc. I'm assuming in this case, it's meant as eliminating the possibility of ever renominating this. That possibility should be eliminated by addressing the nominator's concerns within the next several months, not by imposing some sort of arbitrary protection, in my opinion. GassyGuy 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems straightforward. "I like it! I like it!" doesn't trump basic verifiability from reliable sources, and the "keep-because-enough-people-said-'I like it! I like it!'-very-recently" rationales are pure bureaucratic nitpicking. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delete. Just about every above reason to keep is invalid and based on either 'I like it', or 'it's been nomninated before!!!'. The topic lacks any evidence of notability, lacking multiple non-trivial references as per WP:WEB. The hand-wringing about 'oh my god, it's been nominated before!! RECENTLY!! are irrelevant. Two months ago is not particularly recent when the article is so fundamentally lacking in evidence for its assertions of notability, and voting 'keep' on procedural grounds because of this is disruptive, and ignorant of Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (see that little message at the bottom of the editing window?) The article was only restored at DRV because DRV is a purely head-counting exercise, so is easily subverted, and this has some very dedicated people who want it kept regardless of basic fundamental policy. Proto::► 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above for failing the notability guidelines. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, NOT voting, and the "keepers" have not provided a single stitch of evidence indicating notability and verifiabilty per the required guidelines. Per Proto above, WP:ILIKEIT, hand-waving and arguing the process are not valid keep reasons. Zunaid©® 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I'm loath to do this, but in light of the previous AfD closures may I remind the closing admin that !votes that do not provide good reasoning based on relevant policies and guidelines should be discounted when determining consensus. Zunaid©® 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Afd 2.0 failed to address the "where is the independent reporting" issue. Nothing has changed. Given the vast volume of dead-tree trade press, to fail to come up with anything on the gnews archive is something of an achievement. Groupware, as a subject, is (or was when I read them) widely discussed in said sources. Nobody is asking for a {{shrubbery}} here. WP:N's multiple-independent-sources is the same yardstick we apply to garage bands, up & coming comedians, etc, etc, and is in line with WP:V. That there are worse articles - and there are, even limiting ourselves to the narrow field of FOSS PHP-driven groupware - doesn't make any difference: WP:INN. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm surprised that so many references on the article are not in English. Surely it should be possible to find something to back this up in the English language - this is the English language Wikipedia after all. I'm not persuauded that this article is properly verified and is based on reliable sources. Usually I would suggest giving an article some space to develop but for an articles 3rd nomination this is a pretty serious problem - these weaknesses should have been ironed out after the first nomination. Spartaz 15:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the person who added those non-english sources last night, and I agree that more english sources are needed. However this software is predominantly used in Japan and Europe. Also, "group office" isnt a useful search term in english. So I specifically investigated its notability in the non-english world when I realised that most of the public installations (roughly identified using google) were in other countries. IMO a Japanese zdnet article should be considered as reliable as the English equivalent, and the fact that the page is in Japanese makes it only slighly less verifiable, as machine translation ensures you are seeing a pretty honest interpretation of the article. These source prove that the features listed in the English documentation from group-office.com is reliable. John Vandenberg 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I find foreign language links excluding and if I can't read something I can't take its contents into account. Maybe the links are good arguments for inclusion in the JP wiki but I don't believe that every article on every wiki is equally notable everywhere. Spartaz 17:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:
    1. www.phplist.com
    2. www.horde.org
    3. phorum.org
    4. openwebmail.org
    5. ip-to-country.webhosting.info
    6. www.phpshop.org
    7. www.achievo.org
    8. www.group-office.com
  •  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: when I read WP:SOFTWARE, I dont see Gentoo listed, and I havent found evidence that it is distributed by the other distro's. Im not sure what directory.fsf.org/group-office.html means; I dont think it means it is included in a distro. Do you have evidence that it is packaged by another distro? Also, do you have a link to demonstrate the Alexa ranking? John Vandenberg 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of major distro inclusion = keep
    Absence 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)[reply]
Well, I tried Debian here, Red Hat here, and Slackware here. It's always possible that I'm being incredibly stupid, but clearly my results don't match so far. I could carry on, but laziness is one of the three cardinal virtues (L. Wall, attr.). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the over-long software inclusion guideline talk page and pulled back out the relevent sections on distribution. The existing talk seems to indicate that this section neither has consensus support nor is a particularly good idea. If anyone wants to join in at Talk:Notability software:Distributions that would be great. - brenneman 00:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Where's the WP:RS? SirFozzie 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FirefoxMan --Oakshade 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I'm a very weak Delete, largely because when I try to follow up the references I don't seem to find enough independent reliable sources. If you can show me more clearly and distinctly where the references are, I'll gladly change my opinion. WMMartin 16:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while perhaps it was rather soon to renominate a controversial article for deletion, !voting keep simply on those grounds is not productive. If this AfD fails and the article gets nominated again in 6 weeks, I absolutely guarantee that a number of people will cover up their lack of reasoning for keeping by saying "Keep - it passed an AfD just 6 weeks ago." We shouldn't have to wait 6 months in between AfDs in the attempt to get rid of articles that don't meet policy but have vocal fan bases. This is how some articles end up with 18 AfDs.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That sounds like a beef either with the AfD process itself or with the way it was handled in the second nomination for this article. Your apparent assumption is that the second AfD was closed by the numbers rather than by following policy and consensus ("don't meet policy but have vocal fan bases"). Besides failing to WP:AGF on the part of the closing admin, I think this assumption is factually incorrect as well. --Tkynerd 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into it, but I couldn't even count the times I have seen AfDs closed based entirely on vote counts, especially when there is excessive verbiage as there arguably is here. Note that I am not the only one who felt the need to make a comment to the effect of "admins, PLEASE read all the discussion." This is not assuming bad faith on their parts, and I wish you wouldn't keep jumping to that citation, as accusing someone of making a mistake or misusing policy is not the same as accusing them of bad faith. --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you wouldn't keep assuming that an AfD was mishandled just because it didn't go the way you think it should have. Obviously saying someone made a mistake isn't assuming bad faith, but saying someone misused policy is. And closing an AfD based on numbers can't really be a simple mistake; you're accusing the admin of not doing his or her job. --Tkynerd 18:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment on renominationI would like to ask the nominator whether, in case this nomination loses, he intends to try again, and if so, when. A article with 18 nominations has been mentioned--what is it?DGG 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article in question was the Gay Nigger Association of America. I will continue to nominate articles for deletion that fail to satisfy the inclusion guidelines, knowing both that consensus can change and that deletion discussions are a rough tool at best: Facile, unpredictable, and governed mostly by who shows up and shouts. - brenneman 21:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the new sources added:
    • The Japanese source reads (via maching translation) like a press release:
      Wise knot September 13th, the bundle doing the Japanese edition of open source groupware "Group-Office" in the rental server of the same company, started offer. Furthermore, the same company supports the management of the Japanesecommunity "Group-Office JAPAN " of Group-Office, offers also inclusive support service.

      Group-Office is the groupware of the open source which Holland Intermesh developed. The function which such as schedule management is equal to the general groupware and task management, address register and management of file sharing is had. We to correspond to 27 languages, information joint ownership between plural languages is possible. When access right is set every group, monistic management and security of information it can be compatible. Because it is the open source, you can expect also the depression effect of operational cost as for the license additional purchase and the like which accompanies the increase of the user without necessity.

      Furthermore, presently in the community development of facility reservation function is being advanced. In addition concerning function, it keeps developing the community on the center.
    There is no authorship listed, and while it's a different guideline than the (proposed) software one previously discussed, the (accepted) guideline for companies specifically excludes unattributed press releases.
    • The Dutch source reads (via maching translation) again like a press release:
      If you are in search to a manner (with others) everywhere in the world where Internet is at your agenda, your e-mail and your list of addresses is possible, Group-Office are a very well solution. Group-Office (GO) are an online parcel with several office functions, such as a calendar, task list, address overview, webbased e mailprogramma, jointly files and bookmarks share, wiki, etc. GO have been based on PHP, this means that your GO on every web server can install support with PHP. This has every hostingprovider nearly standard to stands. Nowadays you can get hosting already as from a tientje per year, and its own field name costs 15 euro per year. Look once on www.webhosters.nl. for an comparison

      How do you go work? Firstly unpack you the file with a programme such as 7-Zip. You can the bests the unpacked map groupoffice-com-2.13 hernoemen to something simple such as go. Then you must this map in his whole uploaden to your web server by means of FTP (for example with Filezilla). You shuts with your browser to http://jedomein.naam/go. Vervolgens get you a number of questions which you must pass through. When you have this done, GO have been installed. Further information finds you in this simple nederlandstalige guide.
brenneman 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a waste. WP:Notability is a guideline, not a be all end all policy that requires endless wonkism about the nuances of its interpretation. WP:N-Software is still only a proposed guideline and one that not everyone agrees with. This article has mutiple non-trivial sources period. The broader view is that this article contributes to Wikipedia's purpose by providing useful, notable, verifiable knowledge. Is it the most earth shatteringly important knowledge that human kind needs? No, but neither are the feeding habits of Pokemon. Many of the plain keep votes here were given with reason and explanation on the previous discussions and knowing the history, it is rather obvious that asking people to comment yet again on a topic already hashed out multiple times is going to cause some hard feelings. Good faith nomination or not, this is a typical and understandable human response. Wikipedia is written by people, not robots without feeling. The bottom line is that this is improving Wikipedia and I have seen no evidence that it isn't or that it is harming the project in any way. Wikilawyer all you want about it, but if this project can't see the forest for the trees it has some serious issues. pschemp | talk 22:47, 16 January 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Group-Office_(third_nomination)&oldid=1137892088"