Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CookiePie

From 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 delete `'mikka 02:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CookiePie

CookiePie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
OE API (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
NKT WAB (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I can't find any good reliable sources about this; everything that turns up on Google is either a forum, blog, or copy of the official page. Veinor (talk to me) 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment When I referred to sources and notability, I meant that you need multiple non trivial secondary sources that are independent of the of the subject. Please see here for more information. None of the ones that your provided would qualify. A google group is a forum, definitely not a reliable source. The freshmeat site only talks about a couple advantages and appears to be affiliated with the extension. And I'm not sure why you linked to the Mozilla page as it just talks about how to keep your computer safe. It does not mention the product, at least not that I can see. --Cyrus Andiron 19:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's some freeware. So what? There's lots of freeware out there. Lots. Is this so special that it deserves to be in an encyclopedia? Where are the rave reviews, the awards, the mentions in the computer press? Compare with, for example Spybot - Search & Destroy. andy 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see clear what's happening now. I complained Veinor about Reverse Engineering so he deleted all my articles. The lack of sources is a problem of most softwares made by small companies. You have to pay to other companies to talk about your software. Most of good software is used and you see only references to download pages, that's all. You can see in Wikipedia a lot of first line softwares without references like MSN, Windows Address Book or Outlook Express but they are made by a big company so you say nothing. It's a pitty because I believed in Wikipedia but now I know that if people like you have power here Wikipedia will end as a big failure. User:Pyabo
Sorry you feel that way but you need to listen to what we're saying. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on notability (see WP:N). And this isn't the place to promote your software - it's not a catalogue (see WP:NOT). There's a lot of freeware mentioned in Wikipedia but it should all pass the notability test. Your software doesn't, at least not yet. andy 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason that Veinor removed my articles is revenge, that's all and it's very clear. CookiePie was created on 25 February 2006, deleted today. OE API was created on 4 September 2006, deleted today. NKT WAB was created on 4 September 2006, deleted today. It looks as they were notorious before and after I complained with Veiner they became unknown. Pyabo
    • Comment Wait... deleted all your articles? NKT WAB doesn't show any significant edits by anybody other than FZwp; are you saying that that's you? Because if it is, then you're going to need to pick an account and stick with it. Veinor (talk to me) 20:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment That's not me but that article is of a product of my company and it's clear that it's a personal problem with us right now and a clear power abuse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyabo (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
      • Comment Power abuse implies using administrative powers. It doesn't take those to search for 'nektra', or to do a linksearch for nektra.com, or to look at another user's contributions... there are endless ways to find these pages. I don't have a personal problem with you at the moment, and even if I did, I'm smart enough to know when to stop and take a break. Veinor (talk to me) 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment In Wikipedia the time you dedicate it's the administrative privilege. It's clear that you removed my articles after I complained (see submitted dates) with you and that is a personal attack and Wikipedia is clear about :No_personal_attacks. I think that we should stop here and keep our articles. That's all. The reserve engineering link should be discussed in that article with the contributors. Pyabo
      • Pyabo - you should focus on the immediate issue, which is that several editors agree that these articles should be deleted. If you can add references to show that the software or your company meet Wikipedia's basic criteria for notability then the articles will be retained. If you can't show notability then they will be deleted. You're wasting your time and everyone else's by trying to argue with just one editor. andy 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment to Pyabo What? Are you saying that the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia is administrative privilege? And one of the other things Wikipedia is clear about is assume good faith. Besides, the articles haven't actually been removed yet, this is the process to see whether they will get removed. This is what happened: after I read User:Sebastianwain's first comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio, I decided to see whether that user had a history of personal attacks. I noticed CookiePie, saw what it was, and nominated it for deletion, because I didn't think that it satisfied the notability criteria. I then figured that there might be more, searched for 'nektra', and found OE API and NKT WAB. Nothing malicious ever happened, and I can assure you that this discussion will not stop simply because you want it to.
      • Comment CookiePie is an article that has more than 1 contributor. This article wasn't even touched by me. Before you've removed CookiePie article you've removed First, before you've deleted CookiePie article you've deleted a contribution made by another user that I don't know: User:Widefox saying: 'for major Firefox articles only, please'. I don't know if you know better than Widefox what it major. I saw his contributions and look much better than yours in the subject. Now, it's clear that this is a personal attack since you've done this after you've felt attacked by Sebastianwain. I understand your behavior: when you have a problem with someone you look all the related articles and act as a policeman: that's clear power abuse. Just tell me 2 things: why you remove the TAC from CookiePie and why you realized about the problems in our articles TODAY after I we complained? You should be removed as a user. Pyabo
        • If you would read what I had said, you'd understand that I found this article through the contributions of User:Sebastianwain after they made a personal attack on a different Article for Deletion nomination; you had nothing to do with it. And I keep telling you I haven't deleted this article. Here it is: CookiePie. I've just nominated it for deletion. There's a difference. I also don't get how nominating a bunch of related articles is a personal attack, but calling someone an 'ignorance dictator' isn't. And I tell you again that I did nothing whatsoever that a non-administrator could not do. I removed the TAC because I don't think that it's necessary on every single Firefox-related article; that's why we have categories. And I already told you why I realized about the problems today, but it seems to me like you'd rather assume that I'm drunk on my power. Veinor (talk to me) 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete GreaseMonkey is notable because it's a ridiculously well-used and well-known Firefox extension. CookiePie isn't notable because no one has heard of it. Case closed. As an unrelated side note, I was under the impression that, in most cases, Firefox can pull off opening two Gmail accounts simultaneously with ease. Shadow1 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Shadow1 you don't know what you are talking about, having cookies separated on each tab is a complex thing not supported by Firefox and being 'hacked' by CookiePie because it's not in the API and planned for Firefox 3.0 or beyond. sw—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
      • We're here to discuss the notability of the subject at hand, not argue how useful it is or call me out because I don't have the technical knowledge of a Firefox hacker. Shadow1 (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • That what I see here: You had a problem with someone and look for all his articles to see problems: that's drunk on power for me. A person that start looking what can delete of others after he complains: that's drunk of power. You already know that you've committed a mistake, see the contributions of Widefox and tell me if you know better than him if CookiePie should be listed in Wikipedia and if the TAC is needed there. If you have doubts you should keep our articles. I say nothing against you and I have all the articles of my company removed after I complained, that's what I see and that's drunk of power for me. Pyabo
          • What power? The power to nominate articles for deletion? Anybody can do that. And I keep telling you again and again, the articles have not been removed yet. Veinor (talk to me) 23:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
          • This looks as in the middle edge: If you're not a witch you'll be judge innocent. You and your friends will decide it so the article will be deleted. And it'll be deleted because you had problems with Sebastianwain, that's all. Meanwhile, you and your friend removed a link to our product, just by change, nothing personal. You and your police friends should be removed from Wikipedia, it's a shame to have an SS here. Pyabo
            • Like I said, personal attacks do not help your case here. Veinor (talk to me) 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
              • What in the world is the problem here? If your article is deleted, who cares? It isn't like Wikipedia is that important anyway. It's a mildly respected encyclopedia with plenty of flaws. If your product doesn't make it in, you aren't losing any visibility. If Veinor had as much power as you seem to think he does, he wouldn't need the computer for deletion, he would smite people and articles using only his mind. He only nominated the articles. I doubt very much he gets any satisfaction from the process. Had he been filmed at the time of the nomination, I'm sure we would have seen a very stoic expression on his face. I doubt very much there was any sense of jubilation or hint of malicious intent. Now, AfD is a process, let it take its course. There is no conspiracy. No one that I'm aware of wakes up in the morning hell bent on deleting Wikipedia articles dealing with software extensions. Take a step back and relax. --Cyrus Andiron 00:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - That's not me but that article is of a product of my company... In that case, we're also dealing with WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues. -- Kesh 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - totally non-notable software, and no reliable sources in this article. Also, accusing everyone who disagrees with you as somehow "abusing power" and engaging in personal attacks is not helpful. --Haemo 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The interesting thing here to me, is that is obvious that Veinor puts for deletion my article after more than one year living in peace. Not just this, when I put the article for first time an editor from wikipedia marked it for better edition, I edited it. After a year an extension guy edited my article and added some common format between extensions (although at that time it was not in the firefox extensions anymore). Just today after I joined the discussion with pyabo Veinor put it for deletion, so it was a matter of chance? Vernon won the lottery and find my article?, obviously not, he didn't like what I said and decided to take action against me, because if efficiency matters nobody has complained before. If I edited my article a year ago to comply with an editor policy it can not be possible another editor cames and decide against it, may be in two years somebody in wikipedia will remove Microsoft from the list... who knows... may be in the future companies makes an IPO just to appear in wikipedia. Sebastianwain 01:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I openly admitted that I found these articles while looking through your contributions as a result of you calling me an 'ignorance dictator'. Also, you're treating this like this is a featured article or something. As far as I can see, there hasn't been any sort of assessment of this article before, and it looks like the community thinks that it should be deleted. And I honestly can't believe you're comparing Nektra to Microsoft... Veinor (talk to me) 02:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's totally immaterial how an article was found by a user, and this does not appear to be a nomination in bad faith, nor is it to prove a point. The duration of which your article has persisted on Wikipedia is not an indication of quality - some very poor articles have remained for literally years. Comment on content, not on editors. --Haemo 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the history can see a more reliable editor has passed by my page, changed it and not putting it under deletion. My point about Microsoft is that somebody can put more restrictions in the future and remove articles that are approved now, and I prefer a wikipedia where I can find any reliable information about any company, from my perspective the web give this benefits, you can sort them based on a ranking. In sourceforge you can see projects from 0 downloads to millions, a bit of site creativity enable them to coexist. Sebastianwain 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I'm uncertain how you determine that editor to be "more reliable" than Veinor. Second, you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia if you want it to have an article on every company in existance. Wikipedia has strict rules on notability. -- Kesh 03:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
See: Widefox, and in the Wikipedia notability page says: This page's designation as a policy or guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.. Sebastianwain 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a "more reliable" editor without due cause, and since Veinor has no cause against, he's as reliable as any. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every company that exists, and no conceivable change in consensus can get rid of unambiguously notable companies. And a guideline remains a guideline, even when it is being discussed. --Haemo 03:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You did not answer my question as to how that user is "more reliable." As to the second point, "disputed" does not mean you can ignore it. There are arguments about the finer points of the policy, but the general concept stands as outlined. Further, the proposed revision would still render most companies non-notable. -- Kesh 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
One is more reliable of another, because the second one shows animosity, and since from the wikipedia perspective one who has the same judgement or who applies the same judgement taked a different decision and improve my page, I can't trust Veinor, he is sincere but can't judge in this case. And I am not talking about my company in the Cookiepie page, just talking about the addon relative notability. Sebastianwain 05:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't make any sense. All I'm getting is that you think Veinor isn't trustworthy, because he nominated your page for deletion, but you think the other fellow isn't because he didn't nominate it for deletion. That's not compelling logic, and you still haven't explained why this software is notable --Haemo 05:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's simple: If a judge admits animosity towards you, he can't judge you, so you can judge me. About the notability of the software you can see some more independent links: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Internet/Clients/WWW/Browsers/Firefox/Extensions/ (dmoz is reviewed with knowledge of the field and not everything is added) http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=543703 http://www.firefox.hk/786.html (classified by subject) http://nematzz.blogspot.com/2007/02/my-favorite-firefox-extensions.html http://www.arunma.com/category/cookiepie/ http://loadaveragezero.com/drx/extensions http://www.splitbrain.org/blog/2006-05/01-google_as_browser_history http://paradigma.pt/ja/slog/index.php/2007/01/ http://michael-mccracken.net/wp/2006/05/16/webmailapp-follow-up/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastianwain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
(deindent) Where did I admit animosity? I just said that you attacked me when you called me an 'ignorance dictatorship' on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spy Studio, and that I wanted to see if you have a history of them. Also, I am not the person that's actually doing the judging here, it's the community that is, and so far I don't see a single person that's agreeing with you.
Regarding the links you posted: The DMOZ link provides next to no information, as does the firefox.hk link, the nematzz.blogspot.com and forums.mozillazine.org links are not reliable sources due to the lack of fact-checking (no forums and blogs are, unless we're referencing a recognized authority in the field), the splitbrain.org link mentions it in the comments... which is again not a reliable source for the same reason, all the info that the paradigma.pt link has is a direct copy from [1], and in the final link, CookiePie is mentioned in one sentence in one of the comments, which again tells us no information.
A simple mention of CookiePie is not enough; we need something much more comprehensive about CookiePie specifically in a source that has a good reputation, not a one-off mention in a blog. Veinor (talk to me) 12:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, first of all, proposing an article for deletion is not a mark of "animosity" against anyone, and I don't see any evidence of animosity here on the part of Veinor. Furthermore, I tend to agree with his assessment of the links you've provided - they're either trivial mentions, or non-trivial mentions from unreliable sources. --Haemo 20:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable software, possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues noted above. -- Kesh 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not Delete OE API I can talk only about OE API. I used it for a project and it's really the only product that you can find to create add-ins in Outlook Express. There are some others that only wrap the official API provided by Microsoft some years ago. I've added some links to the article that show Microsoft MVPs recommending this product. May be I'm wrong but this product is much more useful than a lot of articles there and is the only working product in Outlook Express and Windows Mail. Matias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.92.4.2 (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
So, in other words, it's it's useful? --Haemo 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I can only tell my expirience: the company where I work wanted to do a software for Outlook Express and I looked everywhere and I found some storage documented APIs in Microsoft and this product, that's all. All people in the newsgroups pointed to this product. I added in the page some links of Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals for you to see it. The problem is that this guys made a terrible page of their product and instead of improving it they argued :) But they did a complex product, they reverse a lot of undocumented interfaces, it's a good job done. Matias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.92.4.5 (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
What Haemo was trying to say is that usefulness is not a valid argument for deletion discussions. Veinor (talk to me) 01:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no independent sources have been cited which would demonstrate notability. This software is not even included in the main software repository page for distributing Firefox extensions, http://addons.mozilla.org -- Johann Petrak 06:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of motivations for the nomination, the article still fails WP:SOFTWARE. -- Whpq 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:N WP:COI WP:ADVERT. See http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=547807 for further evidence that the author sees Wikipedia as a free marketing tool which he has the "right" to use. This also violates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy section 3.4: "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the debate in order to sway its outcome". Phil Bridger 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • When was the page of notability created? Sebastianwain 15:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Several months ago. History says it was created September 2006, but I suspect the concept has been around for a while longer. Oh, and like Phil Bridger said, asking for people to vote off-wiki, while not as bad as vandalism, is considered bad form. Veinor (talk to me) 15:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Presumably notability was added after the CookiePie page, so rules can change again in some years from now and enable it to be in Wikipedia. About my "bad form" of posting outside wikipedia, I don't see it incompatible with Internet style and taking the attention of others not reading this discussion, I don't signed or click in any Agreement when I use Wikipedia. Sebastianwain 17:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the author's attempt to drum up support at http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=547807 draws a pretty near unanimous response from other forum users that the software isn't notable and this isn't an appropriate article for Wikipedia. Surely WP:SNOW now applies? andy 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand your rules, but if you want to be clearly democratic in the creation of rules and deletion of articles, you will need a bigger feedback from the community, we can post to other Internet places to know other people opinions, may be contrary to me but now there are many few people in the discussion. Sebastianwain 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Other question: Do you store this discussion to be find by a search engine? Sebastianwain 17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The discussion is stored on the Wikipedia servers in order to show consensus. As for on search engines, we don't control them. If they are going through Wikipedia itself and obey the Robots.txt standard, then they won't look at it. If they're going through a mirror site or they don't look at the robots.txt, then this might come up. Searching for a couple of other articles that I've put up doesn't show it, so it looks like this probably won't either. Veinor (talk to me) 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no valid rationale for keeping it and no notable sources to reference it. WP:NOT freshmeat. Chris Cunningham 19:45, 15 May 2007 (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.