Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoho Office Suite


 * 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. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) D ARTH P ANDA duel 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Zoho Office Suite

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

Article is blatant advertising. Article format (design) is a product brochure due to extensive use of subheadings detailing products and features using feature benefit and selling terms. Features and statements are unreferenced (delete as per WP:V). Examples of advertisement content includes "adds a few innovative twists", "it integrates well with other", "powerful drag & drop interface", "includes greater support", "a natural fit for the Web", etc. If content was reformatted with pictures it would be suitable for handing out as a brochure at a trade show where a dictionary article would not. Also delete as per WP:N for headings detailing non-notable offerings as headings are being used as notable destination links using misleading Zoho#SubHeading link syntax in other articles. 2 of the existing 3rd party references did not contain facts stated, 6 of the 9 references are self published, blogs or sponsored content.

Article has improved to a point it is no longer a sales brochure, although there are still outstanding concerns below, I am withdrawing the nomination. - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note DGG is now working on the article. I posted suggestions for improvements on DGG's talk page. When I nominated the article it was in this condition. - DustyRain (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added some references from reliable sources on 23 November 2008 after DustyRain tagged the article for speedy deletion. I believe that this is notable software, and that concerns about the tone of the article are better addressed by editing than by deletion. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's improving. Would you be able to provide additional references for the unreferenced statements? - Otherwise I think the content needs to be reduced to ensure verifiability - DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just stumbled across it, never heard of it, but it appears at least a few major publications have. Appears to be sourced, even if it needs work.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C)  17:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but unfortunately some of the sources but do not contain relevant information they were used for. References must be relevant for verifiability. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — Appears to be notable per the GNG, and the copyediting is currently being worked on. MuZemike  ( talk ) 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not being challenged, hopefully verification of the many facts are provided as that was the largest concern. Note recent editing has improved the article but content still contains bias selling phrases and at least 90% of the facts are still unreferenced. DustyRain (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate 3rd party references for notability in the reviews. Based on what he said on my talk p., the nom seems to be under the impression that the article should be about the company, not the product; I can't think why. I havent checked the company to see if they have other products--if so, that would be an additional article. Routine facts about a product can come from its own web site--what I left is basically a mere description. Sure, we could say where exactly on the site the info is given, sentence by sentence or fact by fact, but why? For noncontroversial material, that's over-referencing. The article was spam in the usual ways, so, as I try to do for a major product, I removed the worst of the spam. . Contrary to what is stated in the nom, the title=Zoho_Office_Suite&action=history  page history shows that I had already done the cleanup when the article was  nominated for afd, True, it was nominated for speedy when in a bad condition. That was the second speedy. Eastmain, an uninvolved editor, had already declined one, and the nom put it back. That's contrary to deletion policy. It's also contrary to policy to delete articles that can be improved, and the nom seems to admit that even by his standards it could be kept if improved. DGG (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, notability of this article was not challenged, it was the design format and concern about verifiable facts. Verification references are required for ALL articles. Personally I think information about the company would be good as well as company history (like most other business articles). There's still a few "marvellous" sales type phrases, personal viewpoint conclusion statements, incorrect facts (as noted in your article comments) that still need to be addressed. The primary point of verifying facts is that any joe blow can create a website and state anything and reference their own content. Wikipedia is not the place for such and this article was excessive stating promotional information without references as well as using valid notable references that did not reference the facts stated. Hopefully you or others will address the outstanding concerns and provide additional references. In regards to your comments regarding nomination, note the AFD process has worked well to force improvements to this article. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I nominated the article it was in this condition. In summary, I think DGG has done well, it no longer looks like a sales brochure, there has been enough improvements for me to withdraw the nomination. DGG, well done, thank you for your efforts. - cheers - DustyRain (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep When articles look a bit too commercial, the answer is to edit them so they conform more to encyclopedic standards, not to delete them.--Filll (talk |  wpc ) 07:16, 25 November 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.