Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (3rd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

24SevenOffice
Previously deleted by Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination), now re-creatd by with no edit history outside this article save the one null edit required to start the counter for article creation and being edited by, an employee of the company who made some difficulties last time round and, since deletion, has spent many hours purging redlinks and weblinks from software lists (no bad thing). So: this is almost certainly an example of gaming the system. On the other hand, there is some additional information in the article - it seems they have amassed a little bit of attention in the months since deletion. Much as I hate to reward vanity editors, it is probable that this now rises above the vanispamcruftisement threshold. I am, however, profoundly unhappy about Sleepyhead's apparent deviousness, since not only does he know that it could have been taken to DRV with a reasonable chance of success, but he's also been told that he should not be editing articles on subjects where he has a vested interest. I for one would have been happy to help Sleepyhead to get the article re-created, and so I am sure would Tony Sidaway. Hell, Tony would probably just have undeleted it. I'm bringing it here so we can have a formal endorsement for keep or delete; as it is it could be tagged as a re-creation by any passing editor with a memory. Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I have 24SevenOffice on my watch-list here on Wikipedia and was surprised to see the article re-appear today. I have no knowledge of and I have no involvement in re-creating the article. I am an employee of 24SevenOffice and have made edits to the article - mostly to correct mistakes and add information from new events. I understand that  suspects vanity and advertising given the previous deletion and my involvement in the article. I would like to note that my contributions to Wikipedia continued after the deletion and has been fairly significant. So I am not on Wikipedia to advertise for 24SevenOffice.

I am biased so I wont add my vote but I think 24SevenOffice meets the criteria for notability for software:

- Media coverage. See the references as examples of media coverage in English. I can also provide an extensive list of media coverage in the Norwegian press (including the major financial and IT publications). The Publish.com article lists 24SevenOffice as one of five enterprise-ready web 2.0 apps. In Sydney Morning Herald (the largest newspaper in Australia) mentions 24SevenOffice and NetSuite as succesfull SaaS providers.

- The system have won several awards including 'Seal of Excellence' at CeBIT.

- The system is innovative as it is the first Ajax based ERP/CRM solution. 24SevenOffice used Ajax before the term was coined. NetSuite for example started using Ajax about six months ago.

- There exists wikipedia articles about 24SevenOffice in other languages: Norwegian (bokmål), Norwegian (nynorsk) and Swedish.

--Sleepyhead 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Kudos to Sleepyhead for not "voting" (yes, yes, it's not a vote). And I accept of course the assurance that Eggen is not a sock.  However this turns out I sincerely hope Sleepyhead will continue the valuable work of pruning cruft from the lists, which is a never-ending task. Just zis Guy you know? 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Unique search term. Thank you for the concise nomination. :) -- Krash (Talk) 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. this article should never have been deleted previously. This is a public company with unique products. -- JJay 19:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Seems notable. Eivind 23:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this nomination is very good but topic is notable Yuckfoo 00:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - It needs reworking by other editors. Google Hits, article in 'Norsk' - same author, but notable (award). --Mane 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.