Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_Project
 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 November 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 no consensus. Whether product reviews establish notability or not is not something policy has any bright line rules about, and that issue is deferred to the community on a case-by-case basis. In this case, nothing clear has emerged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
- So, it's "sources problem" again? CSOWind (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia. Any comments and arguments will be highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, CSOWind (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Per the MacUser and Macworld reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain's above comments. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Delete and Salt Multiple recreations, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. This was just deleted, Wikipedia: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" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
- 14:40, 16 September 2009 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs | block) protected ConceptDraw PROJECT [create=sysop] (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 = [http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/project/ ConceptDraw Project]|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)
- Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote ConceptDraw software products. --Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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[1], whose publisher's article has been speedily deleted twice as spam[2], and whose companion software has been deleted as spam[3]. 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)[reply]
- 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 Wikipedia requirements honestly and with patience, by cut and try method. Sincerely yours, CSOWind. 212.178.22.88 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- "Product reviews do not establish notability". That's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that matter? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to deletion discussions. Of course the opinions in deletion discussions represent the point of view of the person stating them. Chick Bowen 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N in no way mentions that reviews aren't allowed. Guidelines like WP:BK and WP:NF say that reviews are OK so obviously WP:N allows reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews must be non-trivial, the talk page discussions on the N:book and N:film pages reveal quite a bit of nuance. The reviews of this software are trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A review that is over 10 paragraphs and a review that is three paragraphs being trivial? You obviously don't know what trivial is. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ten paragraphs in MacUser are trivial. Before the Internet, computer magazines would have dozens of reviews of this length in every issue. This is a demonstration of existence, not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your problem is with reviews, not trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ten paragraphs in MacUser are trivial. Before the Internet, computer magazines would have dozens of reviews of this length in every issue. This is a demonstration of existence, not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A review that is over 10 paragraphs and a review that is three paragraphs being trivial? You obviously don't know what trivial is. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews must be non-trivial, the talk page discussions on the N:book and N:film pages reveal quite a bit of nuance. The reviews of this software are trivial. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N in no way mentions that reviews aren't allowed. Guidelines like WP:BK and WP:NF say that reviews are OK so obviously WP:N allows reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that matter? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to deletion discussions. Of course the opinions in deletion discussions represent the point of view of the person stating them. Chick Bowen 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Product reviews do not establish notability". That's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (disclaimer: see previous AfD and first DRV for my prior involvement). There are two questions here--one raised by the article author, now blocked, which is whether we have an obligation to cover any product that is in direct competition to one that is already covered. The answer to that is no, because it may well be the case that one product has had a larger social and media impact than another even if their market share is the same; we are not in the product comparison business, after all--we simply record what the world deems significant. The other question is whether product reviews alone, absent other forms of coverage, constitute significant coverage. I think they don't, for the same reason as I just said--a periodical that habitually reviews every product within a certain category is not vouching for the significance of a product it reviews, only that it belongs to that category. Chick Bowen 03:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. So what source would confirm notability if blogs aren't professional and reliable and trade journals also not satisfying you? Returning to our competitors, how can you measure the social and media impact using Wiki article? I think that only by given sources. For example, for our direct competitor MindManager we have a much bigger article with all features described and the huge product history (which was twice shorter in MINDMAP article but deleted from it). All their sources are: a press release from the official product site, one report from MSDN blog (not Microsoft offsite as mentioned in the reference description), one report about award from Inranet journal (I even don't know about it, but I know about the MacWorld which nominated MINDMAP as a consumer product of the 2008 with the Adobe Photoshop) and two press releases (not reviews) from one source, which is currently broken or given links doesn't work. So we have 4 sources (product's offsite, a blog, and two journals) and that's enough for them to confirm their notability and "social and media impact". It seems that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Sincerely yours, hoping for justice, CSOWind 188.115.140.175 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to state any competitors article is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the four sources cited in the MindManager article, I would say they are not sufficient to establish notability, since all of them are basically press releases. Thus, if those are indeed the only sources available (or equivalents) than that article should be deleted as well. I haven't done the research to see if there are better sources out there, so I won't nominate it for deletion at this time, but I'd guess if it were nominated it would be at best 50/50 whether it would pass. Incidentally I don't think there is anything in the conflict of interest policy that would prevent you from nominating your competitors' articles for deletion, assuming you made a strong rationale and didn't try to canvass. Chick Bowen 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, my account is blocked. Secondly, my goal isn't to delete competitors articles but to create good and correct articles about our products. For example, if the product was nominated for the product of the year by MacWorld it's quite notable, IMHO. But I have not rights to decide here. CSOWind 212.178.30.32 (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the four sources cited in the MindManager article, I would say they are not sufficient to establish notability, since all of them are basically press releases. Thus, if those are indeed the only sources available (or equivalents) than that article should be deleted as well. I haven't done the research to see if there are better sources out there, so I won't nominate it for deletion at this time, but I'd guess if it were nominated it would be at best 50/50 whether it would pass. Incidentally I don't think there is anything in the conflict of interest policy that would prevent you from nominating your competitors' articles for deletion, assuming you made a strong rationale and didn't try to canvass. Chick Bowen 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to state any competitors article is not notable by the standards of Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. So what source would confirm notability if blogs aren't professional and reliable and trade journals also not satisfying you? Returning to our competitors, how can you measure the social and media impact using Wiki article? I think that only by given sources. For example, for our direct competitor MindManager we have a much bigger article with all features described and the huge product history (which was twice shorter in MINDMAP article but deleted from it). All their sources are: a press release from the official product site, one report from MSDN blog (not Microsoft offsite as mentioned in the reference description), one report about award from Inranet journal (I even don't know about it, but I know about the MacWorld which nominated MINDMAP as a consumer product of the 2008 with the Adobe Photoshop) and two press releases (not reviews) from one source, which is currently broken or given links doesn't work. So we have 4 sources (product's offsite, a blog, and two journals) and that's enough for them to confirm their notability and "social and media impact". It seems that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Sincerely yours, hoping for justice, CSOWind 188.115.140.175 (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete fails G11 and A7 UltraMagnusspeak 10:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the reviews in the article which I think are fine to establish to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the reviews provide non-trivial coverage. In response to UltraMagnus above, it is not A7, products are not A7'able. It's not G11 either, it is not exclusively promotional. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please answer when the decision will be made? I'm intending to get other deleted articles to DRV basing on this decision. Of course, only if it will be positive. CSOWind. 195.138.71.154 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is written in a fair non-promotional tone. reviews seem to satisfy notability requirements. --Pink Bull (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2009 (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.