Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU Oleo


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GNU Oleo

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Mentioned in the book “The Internet Yellow Pages” by Harley Hahn and Rick Stout (1994) on page 304 (this is the first Google Books search result), as well as “The Linux Cookbook: tips and techniques for everyday use by Michael Stutz on page 302. Samboy (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two small mentions isn't significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete. Does not seem to meet the notability guidelines. The book results above don't cover the subject in detail. Unsourced. — Rankiri (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC) (significant improvements; newfound sources — Rankiri (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Strong keep per mentions in numerous independent sources. E.g. ; ; ; ; .  These are a few I could locate with 30 seconds of work, but they clearly show that the software is incorporated into many Linux distros, source repositories; user discussion sites, etc.  LotLE × talk  01:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of that is significant coverage. You said that you helped write the notability guidelines, but I sure don't believe it. Joe Chill (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but none of these sources satisfy WP:GNG. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep. Has a paragraph in Stutz's book, and also one in this, this, and this Linux Journal articles. Clearly this software was discontinued early 2000s, but it has some historical significance. It started out as a text-only spreadsheet, and was the only FOSS alternative to the text mode sc (software) back then. It then acquired a Motif gui, and was the only the only GUI competitor to gnumeric (unless you count the xpread front for sc). Given that there were much fewer linux web publications back then, and most old books and magazines aren't searchable in google books, we need to give it the benefit of the doubt that more sources exist. The ones found are enough for a stub. Also gnumeric is capable of importing oleo spreadsheets, which means it had a somewhat significant user base to be worth the hassle of writing the import code. Pcap  ping  07:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is round-up review from BsdToday, a publication that is defunct now, but was reliable (editorial staff, etc.) part of Internet.com sites. Also given as top 10 linux console application in this linux.com article, and another blurb in another now-defunct defunct magazine (reproduced by Linux Today, luckily). Also it's the only spreadsheet mentioned in this 1996 iX (magazine) article as "GNU's response to Excel". There's enough critical coverage in these 6 independent sources to write a WP:NPOV stub. Pcap ping  07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Pcap ping  13:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is plenty of coverage for GNU Oleo on Google, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'keep plenty of refs. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be useful software in the Linux community, well established and free. Perhaps someone could explain the "Oleo" name. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep apparently a  nomination without attempt to look for sources. since they have been found, there is no reason for deletion. such nominations waste everyone's time.    DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I always look for sources before nominating. I said "I can't find significant coverage for this software". Are you calling me a liar? Joe Chill (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * my meaning was without adequate attempt to look for sources, judging by the results that others found.  DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because others found sources, doesn't mean that I didn't try as hard as I could. Saying that comment is assuming bad faith and doesn't do anything besides start arguments. In AfD, others can find good sources and others can't. Saying that comment to anyone that can't is disruptive. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)]
 * Joe -- I have an idea ... pls see below. I think that would be a step in the right direction.  Thanks for your consideration.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Snow/Speedy Keep. Per the above.  Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), that might perhaps save some people some time.
 * 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.