Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AjaxWrite


 * 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 20:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

AjaxWrite
This a a new product which I feel has not yet achieved any degree of notability and I prodded it as Yet another word processor - 112 Ghits. That was removed with the comment Reason for proposed deletion was non-sensical. Bringing it here for the community to consider.
 * Delete as per my nom.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  12:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was a story on slashdot about it, which may help to establish notability or otherwise. — sjorford (talk)  13:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Site is gaining press. Perhaps merge with Michael_Robertson (owner/CEO) in the interim. Cleanr 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It was not clear to me why you wished to remove this article. The phrase Yet another word processor - 112 Ghits didn't 't make it in the slightest bit clear WHY you wanted it deleted.The product is still relatively unknown, but what's the harm in it having its own entry in Wikipedia?
 * Comment Perhaps the prod comment was a bit terse - apologies. As I see it, Wikipedia articles record things that have already become notable rather than things that may become so in the future.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  20:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Fair enough. What DOES 112 Ghits mean though? Whether or not Wikipedia only records notable things or not, I don't know. I've always thought an article on everything in existence was the aim?
 * Comment Shorthand for Google hits. No, I think wiki is like life, it rewards the famous rather than recognising the deserving.  See WP:Not (Crystal Ball).   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk
 * Comment Fair point re: the aim of Wikipedia. I hadn't seen that. BTW, I get 739,000 hits when I Google 'ajaxwrite'.
 * Delete it basically got slammed on slashdot as imature. It seems that these days everyone is writting Ajax word processors, Writely, Zoho Writer, seem to be leaders of this pack. Give it six months and then we will see if it hits notability. It might be worth creating an article Ajax word processors or similar to document this growing trend. AjaxWrite could be mentioned in the list there. --Salix alba (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the big list of absolutely everything. WP:CHILL a while  Dei zio  01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Put a short mention of this to Michael Robertson (or somewhere else where it makes sense), then Delete. This is a new website/product that has yet to prove itself to be notable or popular; creating a new article just after the launch may be a bit pointless. Welcome back when there's actually some point in having a complete separate article about this. Let the time tell. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did create the entry, so I won't actually vote, but I see it just as a seed. If the app does work then let it live; else, delete. A couple more weeks of life should be enough to estimate this more adequately. BTW: Google hits alone I don't believe is sufficient to judge it less than a week after its appearance; rather Wikipedia searches could be a criterium Evillan 04:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. Not sure what you mean by "if the app does work", or why that should be a criteria. Hitler's Final_Solution didn't work so well and it has an entry, while personalized mittens work quite well for my son at school, but there is no entry for them. Clearly historical significance (even recent history) needs to be the greatest factor in determining WiP page worthiness. I've used ajaxWrite, but it's a long ways from replacing MS Word or even OpenOffice.org.


 * 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.