Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edeskonline


 * 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 DELETE. Of the seven Keep commentors, four are accounts registered after this AfD and which have few edits except here. The other three are all three registered before this AfD, but only a short time before, and which have a reasonable number of edits outside this AfD, considering that they are new accounts. The first four have little or no standing, the standing of the other three is somewhat questionable. That leaves the nominator and one other commentor in full standing. Both suggested Delete. This is not really a quorum. But looking at the links,
 * this seems not to refer to eDesk onine.
 * this, maxine.com, is an online magazine. How popular it is I don't know, but purely online sources have a low entry cost.
 * this, reviewcentre.com, is just a sort of formum for users to post reviews of products. And there is just one such review.
 * this is not a review, just a note that that (small) website is now using eDesk online.
 * The other four links are just sites that are using the software.

So... one legitimate link, its legitimacy low because it is online. Because of the very low publishing cost, online magazines are often closer to being blogs than they are to being real print magazines, although that's not necessarily true of maxine.com.

Therefore the Keep argument falls apart. Herostratus 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edeskonline

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not furfil Notability (organizations and companies), in particular no refs from suitable secondary sources, all links are from derived products. Only reference is from a public web based review site GameKeeper 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on adding reference links. I also paste below an extract of my comments on the talk page below:
 * I just spoke with the customer support guys at edesk online and asked them about reference links to newspaper/magazine articles about them. They have informed me that few magazines have already reviewed the site, and are expected to publish the same soon. Again I request everyone to help me in improving the content of this article and add any reference links they come across. Dhshah 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough independent sources. Looks like an advert. Realkyhick 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is definately a well written article: several links to this article from wiki pages have been appreciated. Eg List of Online Office Suites has a good comparision. Sanjiv swarup 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no independent refs to establish WP:Verifiability against. Unless these can be provided, these other wiki links should be removed too. It looks like someone is trying to use wikipedia to advertise a non-notable product. GameKeeper 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One more reference link of an independant organisation has been added. Dhshah 14:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Checked out the reference Ramesh debata 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * One more link to an article published in an independant magazine has been added. Dhshah 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. - There are three independant secondary sources which establish notability. Kalivd (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I have been able to locate a fourth reference Sanjiv swarup 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. - I agree with Kalivd. Ramesh debata 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has been modified and independent refs to establish WP:Verifiability have been added. Dhshah 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article now fulfills Notability (organizations and companies) Dhshah 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article has several good wiki references. Sanjiv swarup 04:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ssunderagarwal 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have gone to the site of edesk which is of much benefit not from any particular country's point of view but from the point of view of the whole world.  You need not carry any software just your login shall help you to operate from any corner of the world and it has got all features which a ordinary person having least income as well as a big shot having  very high income is available.  You can store anything you like.  You are maintaining the accounts and any outsider cannot access to your accounts not even the tax people.  How convinient it is.  So I feel that the article should appear and rather it should be given wide publicity   Ssunderagarwal 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. - Since i have gone through the above comment I think there should be no reason for the page to be deleted. I visited the site myself and i find it has all tht has been described... This article should be published rather than deleting it.. Vijaykumartb 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are sufficient independant secondary reviews, including mine i dont think so this article should be deleted. Latha padm 11:37, 4 April 2007 (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.