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

Ulteo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ulteo
• Articles for deletion/Ulteo (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Ulteo (3rd nomination)

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)

• Delete Extensive references turn out to be the either the distro's website, PR blurbs, or pre-release reviews. For now its J.A.L.D. in beta. Thetrick (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• What is "J.A.L.D."? — Athaenara ✉ 10:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just Another Linux Distro. They proliferate like tribbles. --Thetrick (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for clarifying. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, but you _just don't know_ what you are talking about. Ulteo have three main products, including a full desktop that runs within a web browser, and a virtualized system that runs on Windows. So that's Just Not Another Linux Distro. Vautnavette (talk)

• 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.
• 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.
• 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)

— 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)

• The SPA (single-purpose account) tag is not used to disregard opinions, but is used to help the closing admin. Keep in mind this is not a vote. I found this discussion because I was browsing contribs of newly created users. It is suspicious and a sign of a possible sock/meat puppet when a user is created and immediately voices an opinion in an AfD. swaq 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

— buswellj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Articles are not kept for being "fair and balanced", they must show notability. swaq 16:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, and Ulteo meets Wikipedia criterias for notability Vautnavette (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I dunno how you can say that Ulteo is not notable, if Ulteo is not notable, then neither is rPath! Here are some links, none of these are PR links, you have major sites reporting on and discussing Ulteo. This is nuts, next you guys will be wanting to burn books, get off the power trip!!
• http://polishlinux.org/linux/ulteo/ulteo-my-digital-life-made-simple/
• http://www.linux.com/feature/125891
• http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/29/1445205&from=rss
• http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ulteo
• http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/05/20/flipping-the-linux-switch-switching-literally-with-ulteo-virt/
• http://fosswire.com/2008/03/28/ulteo-application-system-beta-1-the-fosswire-review/
• http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9832336-7.html
• http://blogs.eweek.com/brooks/content/office/openoffice_on_ulteo_in_pictures.html
• http://wddc.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-ulteo-help-openoffice-to-beat-ms.html
• http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=1841 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• Compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPath this wikipedia article, the Ulteo article has a lot more valid references. So how come the rPath article isn't up for deletion, when it is taking precedence over an actual (far more notable) rpath linking computer term???? Some bias / motive here against Ulteo??? Wikipedia is a reference, Ulteo is obviously a notable and becoming more notable on a daily basis solution, especially with highly visible open source people like Gael Duval behind the project!. I think you need to explain why you think its not notable?
• http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/ulteo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buswellj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)