Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Petertribou (talk | contribs) at 12:30, 14 June 2008 (→Ulteo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ulteo

AfDs for this article:
Ulteo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The current version of the article was rewritten by user Getupstandup1 (talk · contribs) and is substantially different from the version which was deleted after the first AfD. Note: as per the recent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 8#Ulteo discussion, this nomination does not promote a specific outcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The new article about Ulteo is well referenced, and balanced. Reviews have been done on software products that have been released, not only on press-releases, so I disagree with the comment abobe. Most articles about Ulteo in the specialized IT press have been are serious and documented. The number of references in Google show that Ulteo is already well known and used by many people. I think that the new article doesn't meet any Wikipedia criteria for deletion, or you have to delete most Wikipedia article about software products. Vautnavette (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Vautnavette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I don't understand such harrassement about Ulteo! The new article meets Wikipedia criterias about references and notability. Just consider the product tests by Linux.com, Fosswire and ArtsTechnica: you get three major specialized and respected websites that have tested and reviewed some Ulteo products recently. That's only for well-known news sites because there are hundreds other websites and blogs that have reviewed or talked about the project. So what's the problem? Why would Ulteo be a problem while G.h.o.s.t or DesktopTwo (that have 10x times less Google entries than Ulteo) have their entries in Wikipedia and nobody is concerned about that? Please keep the current article: it's informative and meets Wikipedia criterias to live. Getupstandup1 (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC) — Getupstandup1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep we need an Ulteo article on Wikipedia! The new article is good, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petertribou (talk • contribs) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Petertribou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It has corespondents in 8 or 9 languages, seems well structured or sourced. Noting that it's a pretty dirty trick in trying to disregard oppinions because of low number of contribs pointed out at those who vote keep. --Trucizna (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you just wrote, this is not a vote. Actually I don't see what's suspicious if some users are creating a wikipedia account to participate to this discussion. Or are you claiming that different accounts have been opened with the same IP address? Vautnavette (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is possible that they are the same person or someone who was asked to voice a certain opinion. It is also possible that several independent people just happened to come across the article immediately after it was tagged for deletion, noticed the tag, and decided to create a new account to ask to keep the article. swaq 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article on Ulteo is fair and balanced. I do not see any valid reason to delete this except that someone is trying to suppress the information for their own agenda. --buswellj —Preceding comment was added at 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— buswellj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The article still has WP:RS issues. By the above tagged users there is a visible conflict of interest here. Part of this is that many of the references fall into the self published areas. The software is just not notable. I watch the Web desktop which is how I got to this article. Other editors and myself are trying to go though the list (slowly but surely) to make sure that all the noted articles are following the Wiki policies. In short, this article is about the same not notable software and has the same source issues as the last one.--Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It looks like the WP:RS issues have been taken care of. Unfortunately, I still feel that Ulteo is not notable. Also, please be carefull with the other stuff exists argument. --Pmedema (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I disagree with you. I think that all the discussions here, the Ulteo article and new entries, have shown that there are many independent and recognized websites that have tested Ulteo in a disinterested perspective (ie they don't have any link with the Ulteo project itself). Additionally, new links show interest from press and Ulteo users activity in several countries in the world, including the USA, European countries, and a quick search shows other countries, including China and Russia. This clearly shows that Ulteo is now notable software. Petertribou (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Delete I have gone through every reference on the Ulteo article. In order to be notable, the article must have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Every single source is at least some sort of technology site, with most being blogs and/or more specific to open source/linux.
  • ulteo.com - not independent
  • distrowatch.com - not significant coverage, not independent (linux site)
  • linux.com - not independent (linux site)
  • fosswire.com - self-published (blog), not independent (open source site)
  • downloadsquad.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • polishlinux.org - self-published (blog), not independent (linux)
  • arstechnica.com - low coverage (more on OpenOffice than Ulteo), semi-independent (technology)
  • news.cnet.com - blog, not significant coverage (short), semi-independent (technology)
  • ghacks.com - self-published (blog), semi-independent (technology)
  • slashdot.org - not significant coverage (summary of other articles), semi-independent (technology)
  • virtualization.com - not significant coverage (short), self-published (blog), not independent (Linux/Open source)
  • linux.sys-con.com - not independent (linux)
  • computeractive.co.uk - not significant coverage (brief summary), semi-independent (technology)
  • crn.com - semi-independent (technology)
  • channelregister.co.ux - not significant coverage (mentions Ulteo in passing), semi-independent (technology)
  • blogsearch.google.com - not a source
swaq 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, are you on some kind of power trip? Based on your logic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_rooney this article on Wayne Rooney (famous football player) isn't notable because all the references are by SPORTS MEDIA! You can't say that the open source / IT media sites are not independent sources because they are linux sites!! Same goes (using your logic of classification above), that this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears is invalid, because the references are all ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA sites, and by your logic, not independent! I think you have the wrong idea of what independent means, should be (via common sense), not an Ulteo, or Ulteo employee's site. But ruling out technology meia for a technology article is just biased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:14, June 12, 2008 (UTC)
  • "An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective" (Wikipedia:Independent sources, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Regarding your Wayne Rooney and Britney Spears arguments, I would recommend reading the "Individual merit" section of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. swaq 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual merit section doesn't apply, you might want to re-read it yourself. It doesn't apply because I wasn't commenting on the content of the other articles themselves but on the logic being used to disregard the resources used to substantiate the Ulteo article. The logic is flawed. My point was that if you disregard technology media for technology articles, the same would apply for sports references to sports related articles, which is absurd. You want a reference in a Home and Gardening magazine on Ulteo? Its a bit odd too that nobody has mentioned why the rPath article isn't up for deletion?? It being less notable and having less references?? Buswellj (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are cherry picking the definitions of independent source to fit your argument. The full text states : An independent source is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. For example, in the case of a website, an independent source would be newspaper coverage of the site rather than the site itself; for a recording artist, an independent source would be a review of the artist rather than album sleeve notes or a press release. This is not to disregard the role such primary source material can play in writing an article, but serves to ensure an article can be written from a balanced viewpoint. It also ensures articles can catalogue a topic's worth, its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing. The idea is that articles which don't reference outside sources be placed in clean-up via an independent sources template, and if there ultimately prove to be no independent sources, the article may be listed for deletion."
  • This description indicates that an independent source would be a third party coverage of Ulteo, and not a press release, the site itself or an employee. This *INVALIDATES* almost all of your "not independent" comments above, giving Ulteo plenty of valid references. Lets play with some common sense here. rPath article though isn't valid by this . Buswellj (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you include the ones I listed as "semi-independent" (the technology ones), there is only one (crn.com) that doesn't fail the other tests (reliable, significant coverage). The notability guidelines call for multiple independent reliable sources. swaq 18:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've already shown your logic is very flawed. All of the references with the exception of ulteo.com are valid ones, you are again cherry picking. Dunno what your beef is with Ulteo, but if this article gets deleted the Toyota Supra one needs to go too. Which we both know is absurd. Buswellj (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, I think you are misinterpreting my logic. Being independent is only part of a reference that shows notability. The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent. Others fail significant coverage and being reliable (personal blogs are not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards), with the exception of the crn.com one. I do not have a beef with Ulteo. I hadn't heard of it until today. I am an avid open-source user and have used several different Linux distributions, so I have nothing against Linux or open source either. Just out of curiosity, why did you pick the Supra article to mention? swaq 18:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic is *VERY CLEAR* I'm not misinterpreting it at all. Above you have listed all the various references. Beside Linux.com (feature article by a journalist), you have not independent. You clearly have this logic of linux / open source site equals not independent. This logic is WRONG per the plain example in Wikipedia's own guidelines. If it were correct, then all the Toyota Supra references are NOT independent, and that article should be AfD'd. So if you still think Ulteo article should be deleted on that logic, you should submit the AfD for Toyota Supra. You won't because your logic makes no sense. All of those references are fine, and Ulteo is notable (not just by independent references, but my complaint is that you have said Linux media sources are not independent, which would be like me saying Car and Driver is not an independent source for information on cars!!). Thats nonsense. The problem here is you have misinterpreted the meaning of disinterested perspective, read the Wikipedia link you posted, check the example, then re-example each of the Ulteo sources. You will see that they are by independent third parties, and are not reprints of PRs or documentation. I'm sure we both have better things to be doing here, so please indicate whats wrong with the Linux.com article. Buswellj (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed your comments you mixed in with mine. Please discuss each link in your own comments to make it clear who is saying what and for readability purposes. I also don't appreciate the personal attack. See my reply to MahasonaLK below on my reasoning for my logic on why I don't think linux/open source sites are independent. You obviously have some personal agenda so I won't argue any further with you. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question to you, Swaq, is: what do you have against the Ulteo project? What you are writing is really quite odd. I mean: Ulteo is a project that 1) has been supported by a number of users for a long time 2) has released several products in the past 6 months that catched much attention and tests from IT press 3) gets 600,000 entries in Google 4) has entries in other languages (Ulteo is global, I can even find articles in Russian and Chinese about it!). So where's the problem about notability? Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_OS - nobody complains about it. You don't. And it's just a very early-stage project. Vautnavette (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against the Ulteo project, as I have already stated. 1) Number of users does not necessarily make something notable. 2) I'd like to see another independent reliable source or two with some significant coverage, something other than blogs. 3) Number of Google hits does not make something notable, see Google test. 4) I'm not sure what the other language Wikipedias use for inclusion criteria. However we can't just say that Wikipedia in X language has it so Wikipedia in Y language should too, that can quickly become a circular argument. Browser OS has a "may not meet the general notability guideline" tag at the top of it, so I don't see how you are saying no one is complaining about it. Each article should be considered against the guidelines/policies, and not compared to what other articles exist, see: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I'd like to state again that I have nothing against Ulteo. It seems like a neat little OS, and I'd happily change my mind if I saw some more reliable sources on it. swaq 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq wrote: "blogsearch.google.com - not a source": frankly, do you want me to copy-paste all the _independant_ entries from blogsearch.google.com to the Ulteo article on Wikipedia? Vautnavette (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading all your comments, I understand that you have nothing against the "candidate for deletion" article, but you are just against an article about Ulteo in Wikipedia. So you would vote for deletion for any article about Ulteo because you think that it's not a notable project. At the same time, when you answer John about the "Supra" article you are arguing that there are "semi-independant" sources that can be considered as independent sources (quote: "The ones I listed as semi-independent are a bit of a gray area but I wouldn't say they don't qualify as being independent.") So I understand that when you are supporting a project, you have not the same way of thinking about Wikipedia guidelines. But when reading again Wikipedia's definition of notability, I understand that Ulteo meets each of them, or we don't understand things the same way. So please give the new Ulteo article a chance to live. Even if it's not perfect, it will improve with time, for sure. Vautnavette (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq : Here is another independant reliable source : [1]. By the way, did you read whole arstechnica.com coverage? It's not about "openoffice.org", it's about "online openoffice.org". Regarding your "not independent - linux" argument, when wikipedia guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", subject here is "ulteo", not "linux". MahasonaLK (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link, that looks fine. I did read the whole arstechnica.com article, and I did notice that it was talking about online openoffice.org. However the subject in question is Ulteo, not particular aspect of it, so I don't think that can qualify for establishing notability. Still a good source though. My opinion that a linux site is not independent is because I think they are still too close to the subject and are likely to mention almost every distribution, whether notable or not. I'm changing my vote to neutral. swaq 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swaq: I would suggest you refrain from engaging in reviews of Open Source, Technology or Linux related articles on Wikipedia. You clearly have some bias against open source focused media outlets. Your logic can be applied to Edmunds.com, or Car and Driver about cars. These sites are going to look, review and cover what they feel is of interest and notable to their readers. Just because a media outlet is focused on Open Source does not make it more or less a resource. I apologize if making comments about the Toyota Supra felt like a personal attack, I was simply putting things into a perspective you might easily understand. Buswellj (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have nothing against open source. I use open source software almost exclusively at home. I did not say that open-source/linux sites are not valid references, only that they are questionable as independent, disinterested sources. I was not referring to your comments about the Supra as a personal attack, and I don't understand why you think I care so much about that article. I was specifically referring to this edit where you said "this guy is on crack". swaq 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ulteo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=219273135"