Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ulteo


 * 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 per lack of notability and reliable sources as indicated below. The flood of anonymous/SPA accounts should also be reminded that deletion discussions are not a vote but rather a way of measuring policy-based consensus amount editors. -- jonny - m t  07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ulteo

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

Software that is not notable and has no reliable sources other then it’s home page, a rant page about someone who got fired from their job and another site that you need a password to get into. Pmedema (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I say: just put the word Ulteo on google and you'll find over 250.000 pages of results! Only uncorrect people can say there are "No reliable, verifiable independent sources."
 * Don't delete ! Ulteo is a great and alive project! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.24.115 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't delete and leave it from Articles for Deletion. The Ulteo project has recently released several software products or services. It's alive! I have updated the page completely and added references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.122.59.118 (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my nomination --Pmedema (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The personal trials and tribulations have no relevance with regard to the software. No reliable, verifiable independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there's anything interesting about Ulteo, 2 years of stub should have been enough to get an article with more than 1 or 2 good sentences. Although there must have been a little bit of hype, this is too much vaporware to keep indefinitely. Is neither popular nor innovative.--Chealer (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I really thought Middix or Iteva would get this treatment before Ulteo... If there is an argument for keeping this article, I think it would be a "notability-inherited" argument from the famous guy. Or maybe the linux.com article. But that might not be (and probably is not) enough. -- Swerdnaneb 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete
 * Sorry for my english: I don't want to offend anybody.

http://fosswire.com/2008/03/28/ulteo-application-system-beta-1-the-fosswire-review/ http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ulteo http://www.linux.com/feature/125891 http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/97110/index.html http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832336-7.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-hands-on-with-the-new-online-version-of-openoffice-org.html http://lifehacker.com/software/online-documents/use-openoffice-online-with-ulteo-332841.php http://rangle.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/ulteo-will-it-change-the-way-we-all-use-computers/ http://wddc.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-ulteo-help-openoffice-to-beat-ms.html ... I think there's no need to go futher.

Before to say that "Is neither popular nor innovative" is better read about the Application System (http://www.ulteo.com/home/applicationsystem) or the Online Desktop (http://www.ulteo.com/home/onlinedesktop).

You want to know what to do with the Online Desktop? you may consider to read (http://blog.ulteo.com/)

One thing is right: the page is not well done and MUST be edited. But I'm not so sure it must be deleted... -- Panta 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.20.72 (talk • contribs) — 82.51.20.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DarkAudit (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'll admit I haven't read the article in qustion, but I do strongly agree that Ulteo is notable and popular within it's own right and worthy of an article that presents it as such. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep! you wouldn't delete this article after the first beta version is available, would you? --Amine Brikci N (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would. Existence itself is not notability. I don't think anyone has said, "There's no beta version. Delete." -- Swerdnaneb 18:08, 7 April 2008 (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.