Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jambo OpenOffice
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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) Go Phightins! 01:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jambo OpenOffice
- Jambo OpenOffice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jambo OpenOffice is a Swahili translation of OpenOffice.org by the Kilinux project. Jambo OpenOffice is outdated and unmaintained. I once merged the article into Kilinux which – even though the name suggests that – is not a Linux distribution. That merge was recently undone and the editor asked for an AfD discussion. So here it is! My take: Jambo OpenOffice is not relevant enough for its own article anyway, it causes lots of duplication with the OpenOffice.org article as well as Kilinux. Especially Kilinux and Jambo OpenOffice both talk about an glossary, a Spanish company donating Visual Studio, and so on. KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable article with lots of reliable sources. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as the person who was expanding and digging for hours while searching with google for references and as the person who was undoing the merge. The software deserves its own article as it was a major (first) step translating/localizing OOo/any software in Swahili. Except for the fact it was an OOo derivate and translating, what do these two articles have common? mabdul 21:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kilinux and JOO articles cover almost completely the same topic. The OOo article serves as reference for the technological base. Not every OOo fork needs its own article. The existence of sources does not prevent it from being completely merged into Kilinux. Merge. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said that every OOo fork needs it's own article, that's exactly the reason why OxygenOffice, RomanianOffice, EuroOffice (former MagyarOffice), PlusOffice (from OpenZone), Luxuriosity Office, and OpenOffice.org Novel Edition/LibreOffice Novel Edition don't have their own articles. JOO instead received wide media attention because it was something "new" and one of first localization projects (and I believe the very first for an African language).
- The Kilinux project on the other side is something like a main article giving a short overview of the many projects they did(do?), like the localization of Firefox and other software projects. (similar to OpenOffice Writer has an summary in OpenOffice) Overall the OOo fork received most attention and has enough information and moreover enough 3rd party and reliable references for an own article. mabdul 12:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kilinux and JOO articles cover almost completely the same topic. The OOo article serves as reference for the technological base. Not every OOo fork needs its own article. The existence of sources does not prevent it from being completely merged into Kilinux. Merge. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per KAMiKAZOW and the soruces currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Very notable article with lots of reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.