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 Buswellj (talk | contribs) at 16:52, 12 June 2008 (added links). 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]

  • Thank you for clarifying. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. [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]
  • 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.

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


  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ulteo_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=218888706"