Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Groupware


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Simple Groupware

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Any editor is welcome to prove me wrong, though! Khalfani Khaldun  05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable software, absolutely no showing of importance; Google news search yields mostly a collection of letters to the editor and false friends. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep an open source software project under active development for more than 5 years. It's listed side-by-side with Oracle products, Notes, etc. DiplomaGuide.com lists Simple Groupware as something you might need to know to be a "Groupware Specialist", along with "Microsoft NetMeeting, Microsoft Exchange, IBM Lotus Domino Server and Lotus Notes". They didn't pick a very good name, so searches for "simple groupware" can easily find lots of irrelevant junk, but we shouldn't hold that against them. RoyLeban (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But you don't know if there is relevant sources. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Non-notable software. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are more than letters to the editor sources on google news, it's just that they're not especially recent. It's an enterprise level open source suite that's been developed and commented on by a number of WP:RS (, for one). This isn't advertising and the suite's notable. I'm fine if you say the showing isn't enough, but to say "no showing of importance" suggests there hasn't been any research done. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep:
 * GROUP DYNAMICS: exploring web-based groupware tools, Linux Magazine, September 2007.
 * DIY document management system with Simple Groupware, Linux.com, September 2006.
 * PHP, WAMP and XAMPP, oh my, Network World, 09/18/2007. — Rankiri (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Vote changed to keep: per Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I voted Keep above the line. Responding to Iowateen. I get really tired of Deletionists. You didn't say why you think it's non-notable, whereas my previous response listed 3 reasons why I thought it was notable. We should be thinking about what we CAN put on Wikipedia, not looking for excuses to remove things (or, rather, not looking, and using that as an excuse to remove things). The sources listed by Rankiri above are certainly sufficient (I just added those to the article). RoyLeban (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the discussion until now since it doesn't matter when I post a comment because the AFD lasts for a week. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2009 (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.