| Revision as of 07:53, 28 October 2009 edit212.178.22.88 (talk) →ConceptDraw Project← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:41, 29 October 2009 edit undoMiami33139 (talk | contribs)6,175 edits →ConceptDraw ProjectNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Yet another ] software package aimed at a very small technical market, part of the "project management" spam slough. This is '''''one constituent part''''' of a software package whose main article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, whose publisher's article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, and whose companion software has been deleted as spam. We really need to ] onto all of these minor, me-too software packages. - ] (]) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Yet another ] software package aimed at a very small technical market, part of the "project management" spam slough. This is '''''one constituent part''''' of a software package whose main article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, whose publisher's article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, and whose companion software has been deleted as spam. We really need to ] onto all of these minor, me-too software packages. - ] (]) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| * Firstly, I want to thank '''Hu12''', for blocking my account and all accounts of my colleagues. We have a VPN Internet in our office and therefore single IP for more than 50 workers. Some of them were editing articles which are far from software theme. Generally, this is very convenient method of arguing - to block opponent by IP before the argument. Also he deleted all other articles, even ConceptDraw MINDMAP which was previously deleted and then restored after improvements. So I thought that it met all requirements. Secondly, the main criteria for deleting (as I see now) is lack of notability. It's not very correct to poke a finger at our competitors, but you don't leave me any choice. They have their articles without any objections and reproaches with "non-consumer limited interest specialized software". I gave lots of references from different sources from blogs to trade journals (see Eastmain comment above). Just tell me what else I need to improve or add to any article and it will be done at once. Also, with such a nickname (CSOWind) it is hard to imagine that I was trying to hide my COI. I just try to meet all Misplaced Pages requirements honestly and with patience, by cut and try method. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. ] (]) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | * Firstly, I want to thank '''Hu12''', for blocking my account and all accounts of my colleagues. We have a VPN Internet in our office and therefore single IP for more than 50 workers. Some of them were editing articles which are far from software theme. Generally, this is very convenient method of arguing - to block opponent by IP before the argument. Also he deleted all other articles, even ConceptDraw MINDMAP which was previously deleted and then restored after improvements. So I thought that it met all requirements. Secondly, the main criteria for deleting (as I see now) is lack of notability. It's not very correct to poke a finger at our competitors, but you don't leave me any choice. They have their articles without any objections and reproaches with "non-consumer limited interest specialized software". I gave lots of references from different sources from blogs to trade journals (see Eastmain comment above). Just tell me what else I need to improve or add to any article and it will be done at once. Also, with such a nickname (CSOWind) it is hard to imagine that I was trying to hide my COI. I just try to meet all Misplaced Pages requirements honestly and with patience, by cut and try method. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. ] (]) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' Product reviews do not establish notability. We do not create article for every food processor mentioned in last month's Consumer Reports, why would we based on small mentions in MacWorld? ] (]) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:41, 29 October 2009
ConceptDraw Project
AfDs for this article:- ConceptDraw Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a writeup of a commercial product written by someone with a conflict of interest. Having been deleted it was userfied and guess what? Straight back to mainspace. Virtually all edits to this article are by single-purpose accounts which can be directly linked with trivial research to the company. Call me cynical, but I have a tendency to believe that the intersection between genuinely notable products and products which nobody outside the company thought to write up on Misplaced Pages, is the null set.
The problem here is that the sources are not independent. A press release does not become an independent source simply by virtue of being printed in a trade journal. And an advertisement does not become an article simply by virtue of citing the content to trade journals which say what the company tells them. And a conflict of interest does not become neutrality through that process, either. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, it's "sources problem" again? CSOWind (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've added lots of sources for such small article - 10 references and not only press releases but mostly reviews from well-known resources. As for the "neutrality", I can't understand what do you mean - I didn't use words like "perfect solution", "best", "great" or any other estimations. Just a list of main features and common short information about the product history and it's notability. Btw, such work with other apps in it's pack is a distinctive and unique feature which deserved (from my point of view) to be mentioned in Misplaced Pages. Any comments and arguments will be highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, CSOWind (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The reviews by MacUser and Macworld are enough to establish notability. Trade journals as a category should not be dismissed as playthings of their advertisers, although a few are. Most trade journals realize that they will attract and retain readers only if they provide reliable and relevant information. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Per the MacUser and Macworld reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Eastmain's above comments. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep some trade journals do print a lot of PR. That's usually fairly easy to spot--in any reasonably reputable journal, if they do reprint PR, the PR is indicated as being an extensive quote from the producer, or by using terms of the general nature, "according to the company, this program..." Or, the sort of words CSOWind indicates. The journals cited here are reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt Multiple recreations, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. This was just deleted, Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. Trivial mentions with "limited interest and circulation", does not establish notability, no matter who they paid to review. Obviously the system is being gamed heavily.
- See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation
- Multiple recreated articles;
- ConceptDraw PROJECT
- delete log
- 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
- 14:40, 16 September 2009 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs | block) protected ConceptDraw PROJECT (indefinite) (Repeatedly recreated) (hist | change)
- 14:40, 16 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- 14:30, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- 11:52, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- ConceptDraw
- delete log
- 18:49, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
- 14:10, 21 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw" (Delete to make way for page move content was: '#redirect ConceptDraw V')
- ConceptDraw Project Current
- delete log
- 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (CSD A7/G11; content was: '{{Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption = |developer = [[Compute...')
- 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (blatant advert)
- 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
- Misplaced Pages is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Misplaced Pages is not a place to to promote ConceptDraw software products. --Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Yet another non-consumer software package aimed at a very small technical market, part of the "project management" spam slough. This is one constituent part of a software package whose main article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, whose publisher's article has been speedily deleted twice as spam, and whose companion software has been deleted as spam. We really need to reroute the Alpheus and Peneus rivers onto all of these minor, me-too software packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, I want to thank Hu12, for blocking my account and all accounts of my colleagues. We have a VPN Internet in our office and therefore single IP for more than 50 workers. Some of them were editing articles which are far from software theme. Generally, this is very convenient method of arguing - to block opponent by IP before the argument. Also he deleted all other articles, even ConceptDraw MINDMAP which was previously deleted and then restored after improvements. So I thought that it met all requirements. Secondly, the main criteria for deleting (as I see now) is lack of notability. It's not very correct to poke a finger at our competitors, but you don't leave me any choice. They have their articles without any objections and reproaches with "non-consumer limited interest specialized software". I gave lots of references from different sources from blogs to trade journals (see Eastmain comment above). Just tell me what else I need to improve or add to any article and it will be done at once. Also, with such a nickname (CSOWind) it is hard to imagine that I was trying to hide my COI. I just try to meet all Misplaced Pages requirements honestly and with patience, by cut and try method. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 212.178.22.88 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Product reviews do not establish notability. We do not create article for every food processor mentioned in last month's Consumer Reports, why would we based on small mentions in MacWorld? Miami33139 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)