Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cayra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Commentary moved here from main page

It's a testimony to how far removed from reality you are that you would say I work on Cayra. That would make me a liar, since I have already testified that I am in NO way associated with the project, either as a user, a developer or a friend of the developers or any other way anyone can produce. What this is about is whether, merely by decreeing it to be so and gather the assistance of fellow deletionists, one person can squat and *hit on the hard work of many. It's a testimony to your essential shallowness that the only reason you can conceive that someone would stand for something is because they have a personal vested interest in it. That is the world you live in, not me. Perhaps tens of thousands of people are interested in mind mappers and you and your cohorts presume to officate over which of those is important. If anyone disagrees with you, instead of arguing your side of the case, you iterate and then engage in character assassination. That is merely the factual track record of each and every one of you: Cheeser1, Ronz and EdJohnson. Every single delete voter offered nothing in the way of rebuttal. Delete because I said delete. Clearly I am dealing with GodKings.

Have an argument to make about WP:N? Read the cayra talk section and bring it on, right here, right now.

But you don't have an argument to sustain. Instead, you insult me, you drive away other editors, you call me SPA- single purpose accounts? Whatever it stands for, it's obvious what it means. Just more insults and once again, for the 10,000th time over the course of this debate, you draw the issue away from the substantive debate and instead try to make an issues of WHO I am, of who Dialer00 or Julia Sova or anyone else who opposes you is. The self-centered, broken narcissism that fuels your perception that anyone who opposes you is a not just mistaken, but BAD- a cheater, evil, the refusal and failure to engage at the level of substance, the character assassination, the bullying through procedural means and out-of-band communication, all of it adds up to one thing- a set of pathetic socipathic losers reinforcing each others behaviors and conceiving of Wikipedia as YOUR domain and YOU'RE the alpha males. Want to call me a liar? Would you like me to provide you with a larger forum in which you can make that allegation? Because I can do that.

You drove away a few editors by macing them the second they did something you didn't like. Congratulations. I'm not going anywhere, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by wikieditor9999 (talk • contribs)

The one thing a bunch of narcissists can't stand is the truth. Nothing enrages them like the truth plainly spoken. You have no basis for declaring WP:N on the article. To do that , you would have to have a reason to doubt the third party reviews. You have provided none. You and Ronz and all the rest have attacked the article with a variety of slimy means, including defacing it then citing that defacing as a reason to delete. Attacking the character of people who authored it. Attacking the character of anyone who defends it. Citing it for WP:V, which is inapplicable. You have chased away first time editors, then cited the fact that they ended their participation in Wikipedia as proof they are SPA. You have engaged me in editor wars. You have, against the rules of Wikipedia marked an active discussion as archived. OF course, you did all this because.. why again? Becuase without offering an argument or engaging in debate you think it's not WP:N ? Is that it? 69.137.246.27 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

Note: This is a single purpose account whose sole edits consist of this discussion and Cayra, sans one other minor edit. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, judging by his accidentally signing a comment from that IP above, it's wikieditor9999. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another post in which the substantial merits of the issue are not discussed and insinuation is offered instead. I think we all know what this means. Just do everyone a favor and chose a font color, say red, for each post you make that has nothing to do with the issues and is just more of the garbage you collectively spew onto Wiki, so we can know to skip them. Thanks. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999

Keep your comments relevant to the deletion discussion at hand, or they will be removed from this page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – If no one minds my two cents; I’ll give you a nickels worth :-). First I would like to congratulate the majority of the editors, on both sides of debate, on the civility shown and the genuine concern that every effort is being made to keep the article here at Wikipedia. However, I do believe that a few of the editors are misunderstanding, first the requirements of notability and secondly what a deletion of an article actually is. On the first part, Notability, I believe --Ronz talk has done an admirable job, not necessary on this page but rather on Talk:Cayra discussion page, of explaining the requirements and pointing the individuals to the correct policy and procedures that does and will establish Notability. Regarding the deletion of an article, to the new users, if a deletion decision is made, you can ask the administrator to have the page archived to your page or any other interested editor’s page. This will allow an editor to continue to work on the piece, with out losing any formatting that has been done to present. Once the editor believes that he/she has established notability for the subject article through creditable and verifiable sources, it is just a matter of a cut and paste to re-establish the piece. Here at Wikipedia nothing is ever lost for ever. I have seen articles in the same situation, as the current one, be re-established within a couple of months. In those situations everyone benefits. Wikipedia not only gets a quality article but most likely a new editor who continues to contribute and has a fuller understanding of policy and procedures and can now impress the neophyte contributors with their newly acquired knowledge. Shoessss |  Chat  21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. When I nominate an AfD, I try to stay out of the discussion directly, other than clarifying. I think the article talk page is the place for detailed discussions in most cases. --Ronz (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SPAs

Since it's come up, I did a bit of checking, and I would like to note, as a part of the record, that some of the SPAs involved in editing the article Cayra are active in Cayra's development:

Other SPAs involved in editing this article (for the record):

Both of those IPs trace back to Indianapolis, and both have edited as wikieditor9999 (as if he logged off and then continued to make changes). For evidence, see here and here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

*NOTE: she did not edit the article Cayra, and I am not asserting that she acted in any bad faith. I am just pointing her out because she is an SPA involved in this topic, and is one of the people wikieditor9999 has been talking with regarding Cayra and his "complaints" against Ronz. I believe she is one of the people wikieditor9999 accused Ronz of scaring off (nevermind the fact that she is an SPA with a COI who graciously declines to actively edit the article in question!). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm what Cheeser1 said above and add my own recollection on Julia sova. Though Julia did add a link to Cayra at List of mind mapping software, and she is believed to be the PR manager at Cayra, she participated very reasonably in the WP:COIN discussions back in November. She has not edited the Cayra article at all, so far as I can tell. Her last edit on Wikipedia was 27 November, so she played no role in the recent furor. To my knowledge there is no problem with Zabriski or Dailer00 either, in terms of good-faith editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: [1] [2] [3]. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just want to note that I just recently added Cayra to the list of mindmappers, not intending edit-warring. Omitting it makes the article worse, which begs the question of deleting it; so I'd suggest that we leave it linked, and then obviously fix all "what links to this" if and when the article is indeed deleted. Meanwhile it should be as good an article as people are willing to make it (which includes appropriate links incoming). Pete St.John (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion on a list is determined by whether or not an article exists, so it has little bearing on the AfD. Also, "goodness" isn't the problem, it's WP:N. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
little bearing, but some; "orphans" get deleted. Also the notability of the article can be judged in the context of the other items on that list. Pete St.John (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Can it? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I didn't say either "keep, because worse articles exist" or "delete, because better ones do"; I don't mean to make any facile judgement, just point out that context is relevant. So for example, if you look over the list of comparable software, only this one is ".Net" (that I could tell). Possibly the worst platform, but it's relevant to developers. NT goons who have to deploy brainstorming software over the corporate VPN would care. I don't myself, but it's a reason (maybe not a good enough reason) to keep the article. Pete St.John (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be a great reason to keep it IF such a distinction were covered by reliable, independent sources. But I don't see the New York Times printing articles aboyt how Cayra is the only Mind-Mapper to use .NET 3.0. The potential for such coverage and the existence of differences that might be notable isn't enough. Those sources are necessary. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
So Cheeser1, you are conceding the point that the links were relevant? Insufficient, evidently, but relevant? Pete St.John (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean linking to and from the list of mind-mappers? They were insufficient and irrelevant - inclusion on a list is predicated exactly upon whether or not something has its own article. The only reason it would have mattered is if the article was being deleted for being an orphan, which it wasn't. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I had said "the notability ...can be judged in the context of the other items on the list", you said "can it?", I replied "yes..." giving the example of a topic only addressed by this particular piece, as discerned from the list; then you replied "that would be a great reason if...". So are you agreeing that even though the material may be insufficient in this case, that in general, "the notability can be judged in the context of other items <linked>"? Pete St.John (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Right. "List of _____" lists are simply a collection of all articles of a certain type. If an article on X exists and is of type L, then X gets listed on List of Type L. If X does not have an article, it is not on any list. Every single entry on a list must establish its own notability independently. Notability cannot be gleaned form the existence of other articles, even those that fall on a list somewhere. To make claims like "it's the only .NET 3.0 mind mapper, and that's interesting/important/notable" based on an existing list is, at best, synthesis, and does not speak to WP:N, WP:V, or WP:RS at all. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Coverage isn't sysnthesis. If we have an article for something, we don't need another. If we are missing an article on a notable subject, then we want to promote one, e.g. by improving instead of deleting. The list establishes our coverage, and that's relevant to our editing. Pete St.John (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
But the point is there is no coverage, the only way it could be notable is by a user contrasting two pieces of software. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I wrote our coverage: a user contrasting two wiki rticles and determining "we have an article that covers this subject, so it's redundant" or "we don't have an article covering this subject". The notability of the material is a separate question. In this example, I was pointing out that, looking at the list of related software articles, there isn't one about a .NET implementation, and the proposed article is about a .NET implementation, so it adds something new. So the link is relevant to deletion on that ground of coverage/redundancy, not notability per se. I'm only arguing the list is relevant to assessing the article, not sufficient to keep it. Will you grant me "the link in the article to the list of articles about related software is relevant to the consideration of the article for deletion review"? I'm not saying necessary, suifficient, pro, or con, just relevant. Pete St.John (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not relevant. An article is on a lits if and only if it exists (and fits the list, obviously). Being on a list has no bearing whatsoever in an AfD or a deletion review. If there is some relevant comparison between software X and software Y, it will be made in a reliable source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
So if we have two identical articles on the same subject, neither can be deleted as redundant? Pete St.John (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That would be a trivial merge, probably with redirect. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. How about somewhat similar articles, on closely related subjects? Pete St.John (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That's really case-by-case. Read WP:MERGE. This doesn't really relate though. The subject of each article needs to establish its own notability, in its own right. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to establish relevance, not notability; but seem not to be able to establish the common ground necessary to converge towards consensus, so I give up. Pete St.John (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)