Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tine 2.0

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Not really my subject, so perhaps I'm qualified as neutral. I can however read some German, and the German magazine sources are sufficient to show notability. As for some of the delete arguments: that business software is less notable than consumer software is not supported by policy. The article seems information, not promotional. Sources in the professional field are appropriate ones to show notability, they don't have to be general mass-consumer mainstream, just respected and reliable in its subject. DGG (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0

edit
Tine 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published web browser groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Hoping to be proven wrong, though! KhalfaniKhaldun 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my stance to keep, as long as the notability Unomi has claimed is written into the article instead of just being discussed here. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be my guest to include the references I have brought up. Since you brought the article here because you were under the impression that there were notability issues and you now seem satisfied that notability has been established I consider this discussion over and that the reasonable outcome is keep. As the person who originally brought the article here it would only be right if you edited the article to reflect the sources. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0 is not a webbrowser. Tine 2.0 is webbased groupware solution. Tine 2.0 meets the same criteria like any other project listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Open_source_or_free_software . (Lkneschke (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC))— Lkneschke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That list is in no way related to Wikipedia policy, though. Being on that list does not require an established notability, and this article does not establish it either, or even provide any reliable secondary sources. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G11 only allows for deletion of articles that are entirely promotional material. In this case the article is salvageable because a rewrite of the lead (and addition of reliable sources) would actually result in a good start-class article, since the history and features section are not especially spammy. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tine 2.0 is opensource and not commercial software. I also added more external resources about Tine 2.0.(Lkneschke (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Advertising has two possible goals: increasing revenue and increasing brand awareness. Non-commercial products can still be advertising if they're trying to increase awareness of what they're offering. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 17200+ ghits on "tine 2.0". Notable within its field enough to be nominated as runner up for 2 awards. Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl. Unomi (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search, too, before nominating. The first several pages of hits were blogs, aka no reliable sources. Please read WP:GHITS and WP:GOOGLE#Interpreting results.
Also, to address the rest of your comment (so as to not make it seem like I'm picking at the smallest flaw), you're going to have to demonstrate the notability of those awards for that argument to stand. Awards given out by random people for the sake of doing so don't contribute to the notability of this subject. On top of that, you just said yourself that Tine 2.0 isn't notable. "Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl." = non-notable. KhalfaniKhaldun 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.openusability.org/index.php/about/ is not just 'some blog' also, I might add that for software online sources are perfectly relevant, you might for example refer to the discussion that went on at exim4 regarding the use of maillist posts.
That something is not widely talked about does not make it not-notable. If that were the case we should probably just mirror 'The National Enquirer'. The point I was making was that it is a fairly narrow and specialized field and that the lack of coverage is not surprising, as you can see with the lack of coverage on other groupware projects. If it is perceived that there is advertising or soapboxing going on, that can be resolved through editing. Do you think that www.trophees-du-libre.org is giving away 4.500 euros per category with a minimum of 500 euro for each nominee just for the sake doing so? The fsf seems to think it is notable. So does Linux Magazine. The French government and the EU seem to be sponsors of the awards. Unomi (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so maybe you're right. If you'll notice in my original nomination, I said I was hoping to be proven wrong. Can you improve the article to demonstrate notability, then? Just bringing up all these things here isn't helping the article any! ;) KhalfaniKhaldun 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, once notability has been established it doesnt go away, as you seem to have all this time on your hands that you go around putting articles up for deletion willy nilly perhaps it would be educational for you to get a feeling for what it is like to improve some of these articles. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can someone explain why Tine 2.0 is not noteable but other less know opensource groupware projects are? Just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware. Have a look at ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for example. Why got pages about these projects accepted? I don't see any difference. Tine 2.0 is at least noteable as these projects. You should apply the same rules to all comparable opensource projects. This means either you start a discussion to delete all comparable pages or you need to keep the Tine 2.0 page. Any other decision would be to act arbitrarily. (Lkneschke (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct on both counts. Neither of the those articles demonstrate notability either, and since you have pointed them out to me I am nominating both for deletion. However, you should read this essay on why your argument is not actually a significant argument against deletion. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to an essay or a policy somewhere on Wikipedia. If you wanted to know why it fails to meet notability guidelines, you just needed to read the linked article. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the links, but I don't see the problem. Tine 2.0 is noteable after reading the links. Just marking ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for deletion is still inconsistent. You will also need to mark all other projects listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware for deletion. Either we have a page listing the important opensource collab projects here at Wikipedia or not. If we have this list it should be complete. If this page does not belong to Wikipedia, you need to mark all opensource collab projects for deletion as they all share the same level of notability. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to another opensource project which shares the same notability like Tine 2.0. (Lkneschke (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tine 2.0 is not only of interest for business users. Any organisation requires tools like Tine 2.0 and groupware in general. Sourceforge is the biggest opensource community. Trophees du libre is most important opensource price here in europe. The FSF who supports Trophees du libre is the most important opensource supporter. Just because you don't know about these organisations does not mean that they are unimportant. Try to inform you, before posting here.
What is spam about implementing CRM and ERP? The CRM functionality is implemented and parts of ERP too. What is the problem about mentioning it?
Tine 2.0 is unique in that it combines groupware, CRM and ERP. You don't need to install 3 different applications, but can use one opensource software. And Tine 2.0 is designed to support the whole organisation. That's a fact and no spam.(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This is no spam. Tine 2.0 is as important as any other opensource groupware project mentioned here on wikipedia. Why is a page about Tine 2.0 spam, but about other opensource groupware projects not?(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, so let's pretend it's not spam even though it looks, smells, and tastes like spam and comes in a can. An article needs to be verifiable. I also see you seem to be on Wikpedia only to....promote...this software. Drawn Some (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is my first article. But it is not my intention to spam. I'll improve the article to make the facts more verifiable. (Lkneschke (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The introduction got rewritten. Hopefully it does not smell like spam anymore. (Lkneschke (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I reworked the history section. I'm aware that it needs some polish, but maybe it goes in the right direction.(Lkneschke (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Of cours, this "vote" is your first and only contribution to Wikipedia. This is not a vote. Drawn Some (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intend was to point out, that this discussion is about two points. While IMHO notability for this page is given, the quality (especially of the first paragraph) was bad and could lead to the conclusion that this article is spam. Nevertheless I made my first contribution and reworked this paragraph to give a precise classification of the software Corneliusweiss (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Seems quite notable to me. see Golem.de, linux-magazin, and silicon.de. These references are in German, but are still valid in my view. These references are also quite specialized press, but, after all (and as an example), computer games have perfectly satisfactory references from specialized press (gaming magazines, sites etc). Article needs a clean up, not deletion. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Gaming magazines are mainstream press, and can address notability. If we were to look at gaming industry trade press to establish notability, then we would need a vast amount of it (there is such a thing). They should be treated as "local" (the trade) newspapers for establishing notability, and we would need a great deal of them with significant coverage. Notability could be established by a few mainstream references with significant coverage, I don't see these yet. Verbal chat 08:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Golem.de and Heise.de are the most important/bigest German news sites. They should easily qualify as mainstream references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkneschke (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comments: Not sure that size, readership, or specialization matters. As my last comment suggested, specialized press is often used and can be a good reference. My thinking is that the sources seem to meet the "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" guideline found at WP:SOURCES. Software review magazines, and their internet equivalent, often meet these guidelines. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources provided by User:Czar Brodie are a start, but I'm not sure they're really mainstream enough to address the notability requirement. The closing admin should keep in mind that of the "Keep" votes, one is an SPA, one registered just to comment here, and another failed to provide any rationale whatsoever, and weigh those arguments accordingly. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, The closing admin should note that some of the "Delete" votes seem to fail to read "keep" sources, arguments and sigs. Some like Lankiveil above resorts to ad hominem and poisoning the well.
trophees-du-libre is a well funded FOSS award that gives out 4,500 euro per category, the award is sponsored by the EU and the French government amongst others. This award is generally understood as being notable. The editor who brought the article here for deletion has acknowledged that the notability requirement for this article has been met, any remaining problems can be resolved thru editing. <3 Unomi (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2009 (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/Tine_2.0&oldid=1077951594"