Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinA&D

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 of the debate was Delete. Notability not established. Merge with the software company that made it if you want (see me for an undelete to your userspace) but too small a nugget for a separate article. --++Lar: t/c 02:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WinA&D

Non-notable software; excelsoftware.com product articles being mass-created [1]. Haakon 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This article follows the same format as over two dozen other articles for UML tools referenced from page List of UML Tools. Many of those tools are shareware tools with a shorter lifespan and smaller user base. By comparison, WinA&D has been around for 10 years with thousands of users in 40 countries at companies like GM, Lockheed Martin, IBM, etc.

Are you proposing that all UML tool articles be deleted?

SoftwareDeveloper 00:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC) The text for this article comes from Excel Software with full permission.

  • Comment Actually, a lot of these articles get left alone because nobody notices them. Activity like yours, suddenly showing up and creating multiple articles obviously to advertise your products, draws notice. Thanks for the advice, though. I think these other products need a good look. Fan1967 00:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SoftwareDeveloper 01:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC) Although I'm new to Wikipedia authoring, I did spend many hours first reviewing other such articles to ensure my postings were consistent with others and as non promotional as possible. If your goal is to remove all product/tool references then there are many such articles and plenty of lists that references those pages. Don't you think that removing this information will reduce the value of Wikipedia? For example, of what value is the Unified Modeling Notation (UML) without a tool that supports it?

  • There's a difference between documenting and advertising. In many cases it takes a lot of work to ensure that all articles are encyclopedic, not promotional. Fan1967 02:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have an article Unified Modeling Language. People kept adding tools there. So we started the separate List of UML tools with a definition what an UML tool is at UML tool. From time to time, someone drops in there and screams "adspam!" and starts a deletion campaign. I know that Wikipedia is not meant for advertising, but the question yet to be answered is: why do you want to censor these lists? Do you really want to have only tools from the two or threee biggest companies on that list? Or do you want to have no tool listed nowhere on Wikipedia? Then please put Unified Modeling Language on your watchlist and clean that once a week at least. See: If we are talking about things like UML, doesn't it make sense to also have some tools listed? After all UML is meant to be used for software development and the industry is using tools to support UML. Wikipedia is not censorship. Please note: I do not have a special interest in WinA&D (far from that). But please note that WinA&D is a well known UML tool which has been around for years now. Claiming that this tool is not noteworthy in the UML area is simply not correct. Please consider stopping this deletion campaign of UML tools. This campaign may be noble but it isn't thought thoroughly to its end. And please don't think there isn't anybody watching lists like List of UML tools. Thank you for your consideration. --Ligulem 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it is *not* a Wiki about UML tools. To answer a specific question above, I only want to have the major tools used in that field on wikipedia, the rest is list cruft with no purpose. There are better places on Internet for an exhaustive overview of all UML related software. Equendil Talk 07:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well. How do you define major UML tools? And do you put Unified Modeling Language on your watchlist and delete every addition of an UML tool there then? (that's what we had in the past, nearly on daily basis). --Ligulem 07:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What makes something "major" is of course subjective and will depends of the area of knowledge covered. As far as software is concerned, I'm usually quite partial to the Google test. In my book, hits in the hundreds of thousands or better yet in the millions make a software application major, whereas a search on a product that fails to reach the 1000 results limit of Google makes that product very minor. Rational Rose scores 1,680,000 hits on google [2], WinA&D a mere 955 hits [3] (~300 different hits). Ultimately, I try to set a scale based on the amount of results returned by products in a given category of software, I would raise the bar if we were talking about main stream products such as a word processor or a video game (97,000,000 hits for "microsoft word", 60,000,000 for "world of warcraft") or lower it for more obscure fields. As for watching the Unified Modeling Language page, no I don't do that, though I have no idea what's your point. Equendil Talk 09:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
These requirements you are imposing here have no consensus on Wikipedia. "As for watching the Unified Modeling Language page, no I don't do that, though I have no idea what's your point": Yes, that's part of the problem. --Ligulem 11:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not "imposing" anything on anyone, AfD pages are used to reach a concensus. You will find that the community at large is not in favour of including unnotable subjects in Wikipedia (there are exceptions such as schools or geographical locations), and that in the absence of hard rules, one has to use common sense and good judgement. You are of course free to disagree, maybe point out why my arguments/criteria have no weight, which may convince others and possibly make me change my mind. I'm still eager to know why you think I should be watching the UML page by the way. Equendil Talk 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Not that this post here would matter anything—as you obviously do not care about the field these articles are about and you've made your decision anyway. But you might want to "impose" your "common sense" here too. I'm sure you will find some other "non-notable" software there too. At least, this would make your actions here look a little less random. Contributing to wikipedia by random voting for mass deletes of articles created by newbies hours after their creation isn't exactly so interesting. But if it makes you feel happy: well then! Happy deleting! --Ligulem 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm a software engineer, so I might just have a little interest in that field. As for other non notable entries, feel free to point out individual entries, I might just propose them for deletion indeed. My actions are not "random", I'm patrolling new pages, fixing those entries that can be salvaged, helping their author improve the content where possible, or at least making sure they are listed for cleanup for later edits by other wikipedians, also participating in the various deletion procedures for entries that I or others think are not suitable (which also sometimes involves arguing in favour of said entries). Equendil Talk 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a software engineer too (since 14 years). What bothers me is that you vote here but you do not care about articles like Unified Modeling Language. You didn't respond to the problem I pointed out above here (editors constantly adding tools to articles like Unified Modeling Language). How do you "explain" your "non-notable" criteria to them? We have a lot of anons adding these tools every day. You can remove things like MonoUML from List of UML tools. It will be readded by an anon in less than 4 weeks. You can also delete List of UML tools: anons-will then add tools to Unified Modeling Language (do you prefer that? Are you going to revert-war with them over that? This is a wiki!). I don't think I need to point you to articles, do I? You sure know how to navigate through a hierarchy of categories, do you? We have all sorts of "collections" on this wiki — some random deletes of knee-jerk "non-notables" won't solve that problem. And don't you think it is a problem to explain to newbies why there are articles like MonoUML and articles like WinA&D are nominated for AfD within hours? Doesn't look that a bit arbitrary (even) to you? This deletion campaign is a random shot like all the previous ones I've seen on the lists of softwares. Don't try to make you looking important here by wrongfully citing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Your random shot delete votes are pointless. I'm sure you will walk away like all these other "AfD"ners I've seen before on the software lists. --Ligulem 21:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let's stop this, the UML article is not the center of Wikipedia, there are *hundred* of articles deleted every day, I'm sorry that's still not enough and some articles make it through, can't be everywhere. You think it's pointless ? Without deletion, wikipedia would be a collection of unknown high school rock "bands", bio stubs of random people, ads for web sites and various products, hoaxes and crackpot theories, copyrighted material copy/pasted from websites, manuals, HOW-TOs, etc ad nauseum, sitting there polluting the database, making categories unusable, wasting the time of other wikipedians who work on cleanup tasks, and turning Wikipedia into a generic free hosting wiki as opposed to an encyclopedia. Equendil Talk 06:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Now we are getting to the point: You are comparing WinA&D with "unknown high school rock "bands"". "the UML article is not the center of Wikipedia"—indeed (So why do you want to make a point here?). But it's the center of this delete debate, which you persistently refute to acknowledge. As I said: you are on a random campaign here. And you can't concede the errors in your reasoning. This is humand (persisting to what one has said, being unable to accept own errors), but not actually what's needed to be a good editor for wikipedia. --Ligulem 07:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, The UML article is not the center of this debate either, the WinA&D one is. I've already explained why I'm participating in this procedure, I didn't end here for random reasons. That you seemingly refuse to acknowledge this on the ground that I'm not involved in the UML article is another story. Equendil Talk 08:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You're action here is random because you actually do not even care about things like MonoUML. You are on a "patrol" here. This is ok for vandalism. But the creation of WinA&D is not vandalism. Your "patrolling" would be fine if you would have a consistent strategy. But you don't. Excusing yourself with "I can't be verywhere" is a bit ridiculous. It rather shows that you've exhausted your arguments. You could at least comment about what to do with MonoUML. Do you want to delete that too? Your refusal to comment on a broader view is exactly the problem here. This would actually reveal the errors in your resoning. Well, nothing but a random shot. And WinA&D is your random victim. This makes it look like you possibly do have an interest in the removal of said product/company from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not censorship and you have to treat all these products the same. That's the point. --Ligulem 08:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
To Equendil: Aha, you've prodded MonoUML. Well, what about Gaphor? Is this notable? --Ligulem 08:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

SoftwareDeveloper 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC) I looked at each of the articles (RbApp, WinA&D, MacA&D OSX, MacTranslator OSX, QuickUML, QuickHelp, QuickCRC) that I've posted on Wikipedia using a format similar to dozens of existing articles and discovered some interesting facts. Every article was suggested for deletion, by the same 4 user names, in the same order, with the same comments, in approximately the same time period. Does something smell fishy to you?

  • All were suggested for deletion by me, not four users. I used the same comment because I had the same reason for all the articles. I have later been told I should have grouped them together into one nomination, which is how it should be for mass-AfDs. I apologise for the hassle of all the nominations. Haakon 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • No problem with nominating them separately. My question: could we find a compromise and keep WinA&D, de-POV and de-advertise that in wording as much as possible (as needed) and merge the others into WinA&D? (I've already added merge suggest tags to the other articles). --Ligulem 21:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mass delete as per nomination. Equendil Talk 07:21, 11 June 2006 (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.