Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNOME Office


 * 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. Despite a 3-2 !vote, the keep !voters have failed to prove anything more than trivial sources that prove existance but not any actual software or development. v/r - TP 00:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

GNOME Office

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete – There simply is no GNOME Office suite. The whole article is about a Wiki page on live.gnome.org that merely lists a few GTK applications for office use. KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficient third-party coverage. Delete as non-notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Some coverage in multiple books. This may be somewhat historical, but notability is not temporary.  Gnumeric still recognizes itself as part of the GNOME Office suite & there have been efforts to standardize some libraries between the applications.  It is poor form to construct a strawman article after an AfD article & unlinking the page before deletion has been agreed upon is also somewhat questionable. --Karnesky (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no GNOME Office suite. That's a fact. Telling people otherwise would be a lie. Just look at the supposed GNOME Office “website”. I was removing allegations in articles that claim that GNOME Office is actual software and not just a list on some random website. This has nothing to do whether the article stays in Wikipedia or not. Why do you call my actions “questionable” and refer to some books when even the GNOME Office “website” says otherwise? Maybe the books are based on wrong info from Wikipedia… Considering that most books listed in your Google search are by Richard Petersen who seems to have just released derivatives of one poorly researched work multiple times as „Handbooks“ for Ubuntu and Fedora (a rerelease for new Ubuntu/Fedora versions), your claim of “multiple books” breaks down. Again: Not even http://live.gnome.org/GnomeOffice claims that GNOME Office is an actual office suite. I have some questions:
 * 1.) What were those standardization efforts?
 * 2.) Why does a library standardization effort result in an actual office suite?
 * 3.) What was the outcome of those alleged efforts? Some talk on a mailing list and that's it?
 * If you can prove that there was actual and notable work done, write a thorough History section. But reverting honest edits by me without even attempting to prove anything, is the actually questionable action… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article accurately describes GNOME Office as being loosely integrated applications. There are no lies in the article & you've failed to claim any (please feel free to do so with "citation-needed" tags if you think it will improve the article).  The GNOME Office development efforts predate OpenOffice.org (and, some claim, the successful open sourcing of star office is one reason GNOME Office waned).  Many of the articles about GNOME Office are therefore from ca. 2000 .  But, again: notability is not temporary.  Many of the books in that search are from one author.  But many are also not .  --Karnesky (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * https://live.gnome.org/GnomeOffice says nothing that supports your claim that there is or ever was a GNOME Office suite. All the “facts” you so far presented, are ideas for an office suite that never came to fruition and poorly researched books (probably based on Wikipedia’s false info). Today there is no GNOME Office which is why your edits in several articles, claiming that app XY is part of GNOME Office is simply inaccurate. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There, I now even wrote a History section (something you should've done instead of simply reverting my accurate edits), using your own sources that objectively prove that GNOME Office never was anything but a vague idea with lots of chit-chat around it but no actual resulting office suite. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you agree that it was/is a real project and that reliable sources exist, please withdraw your deletion nomination. --Karnesky (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All I agree on is that there once upon a time were some discussions that resulted in nothing but hot air. That's hardy worth mentioning in an article. Even the goffice library is a Gnumeric sub-project as proven by the README file I linked as reference – therefore a sentence in Gnumeric should cover it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is any evidence that GNOME Office intended to release the traditional all-inclusive suite that would be a single download (which is how MS Office and LibreOffice are distributed). Nevertheless, this does exist on debian .  GNOME Office was and remains a project that provides some loose amount of sharing for both the development and interoperability of the individual applications that are included.  This is what is in the books and articles and is what is written in the article.  No more, no less.  --Karnesky (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No GNOME Office project exists. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I have a short look at the references and found some reasonable things: Starting with The Register I found three additional reports:  and  - so until April 2001 only speculations. A "review" or first look was posted at http://web.archive.org/web/20050101055043/http://www.linuxorbit.com/features/goffice.php3 (July 21 2000) so there was really a project, although it seems to be (at least to me) that this is/was only a collection of applications combined under the name Gnome Office. mabdul 19:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming that some scribblings from 2000 are enough to keep the article as notable, does that mean that Karnesky can continue to claim that GNOME Office currently exists and that specific programs are currently part of it? That guy does not even accept the words from GO’s website which clearly that “There are a bunch of GNOME/Gtk applications that are useful in an office enviroment”. There is no single word describing the current existence of some GNOME Office “project”. Heck, of all listed applications, only two even have the note to be part of GNOME. AbiWord etc. are 3rd party applications. AbiWord’s own website http://www.abisource.com/information/about/ gives no indication of any official relationship to GNOME. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - I see little benefit from having an article on this. It's not much more than a list of GNOME office applications. --Chire (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2011 (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.