- ZuluPad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)
Note: if you want to skip the history of this article, please see the "Establishing Notability" section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Draft Version of New ZuluPad Page: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad
I make the argument here that ZuluPad is at least notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_wiki , and as such deserves to be listed on that page. I also make the case that since the original ZuluPad page was deleted on February 27, 2006, it has come to be a popular and noteworthy program, deserving of its own Wikipedia page. I have asked for a deletion review because "new information has come to light since a deletion", and while a new page could be created, user User:VanTucky will not allow the page to be recreated, ostensibly because of the original deletion decision of 2/27/06.
I will establish ZuluPad's notability in a bit, but first, some history: I added ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki (originally "Desktop Wiki", but the two pages were merged, and hereafter I will refer to both as "Personal Wiki") page in early 2006, and I created a ZuluPad page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZuluPad . The initial ZuluPad page was deleted because the application was deemed to be non-notable. Granted, it had been released just weeks before, so it was probably non-notable at the time. I exercised my right to challenge the deletion on Wikipedia here, but lost. I respected the community decision at that time to delete the ZuluPad page, and leave it listed on the Personal Wiki page. I did not try to recreate the page.
However, ZuluPad has been listed continuously on the Personal Wiki page since February 2006 until being deleted--along with a number of other Personal Wiki applications--by User:Thumperward on May 17, 2008 with this note: "(rm inappropriate external links; please add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles. move all screenies to the top for now)". By this point, ZuluPad did have its own page, created by a ZuluPad user (with whom I have no association) around September 2006. This ZuluPad user mentioned his desire to have a Wikipedia page on the ZuluPad forum here.
Anyway, since ZuluPad did have its own page at this point, I followed Thumperward's suggestion to "add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles". ZuluPad had its own article at this point, so I added it back. It seems worthwhile to note that this direction to only list applications with their own Wikipedia pages comes solely from Thumperward, and is not the result of any community consensus or existing Wikipedia policy. It also conflicts with the community decision to delete the ZuluPad page and "Merge into Desktop Wiki (which could have some external links) until it gains some notability of its own." -rodii. Somewhat interestingly, this decision to remove Personal Wiki applications en masse also removed VoodooPad, which according to the Personal Wiki Discussion page, is the inventor of the genre. It should also most certainly be listed here.
I attempted to re-add ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki page, but another user, VanTucky decided to delete the existing ZuluPad page, and remove references to ZuluPad from the Personal Wiki page each time I added them, claiming it shouldn't be listed because it didn't have its own Wikipedia page. I find the circular logic used here astounding. The person who deleted the page shouldn't be able to make the argument that Wikipedia should be purged of references to ZuluPad solely because it doesn't have its own page, and a decision to delete a page shouldn't preclude that page from being recreated at a later date, which is what VanTucky is arguing. I ask here for a reversal of the original deletion decision, so VanTucky will stop deleting all references to ZuluPad from Wikipedia.
Establishing Notability
Why is ZuluPad at least as notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed on the "Personal Wiki" page? A Google search for "ZuluPad" will net you 23,400 results, some of which are the following:
Digg.com
ZuluPad appeared on the front page of Web heavyweight Digg.com, garnering 1,481 diggs:
http://digg.com/software/Personal_Wiki_Application_As_Easy_As_Notepad_It_is_FREE
Lifehacker.com
ZuluPad was "Download of the Day" on Lifehacker.com, garnering comments that found it simpler to use than Wikidpad, which is listed on the Personal Wiki page.
http://lifehacker.com/software/wiki/download-of-the-day--zulupad-190656.php
Northjersey.com
Saturday, October 13, 2007, "Better Living" - Peter Grad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
ZuluPad was reviewed by Peter Grad, a computer columnist for The Record, a daily newspaper serving New Jersey. Unfortunately, with this being a print publication, a link to this article is no longer available, but Wikipedia policy is that references don't need to be immediately verifiable, as long as references can be varified by a trip to a library or a letter to the newspaper, which should be the case here.
FreewareWiki.com - ZuluPad Review and Author Interview
"The program is very small, fast, and easy to use."
http://freewarewiki.com/ZuluPad
Donationcoder.com Mini-Review
"Nice workflow once you get used to the program"
http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=8599.msg63081
Gizmo's Tech Support Alert - Best Free Outliner
"Its strong card is the ease with which you can create a set of linked and cross linked documents."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/dr/best-free-outliner.htm
BestFreeApps.com - Review
"In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s near perfect for my needs."
http://www.bestfreeapps.com/productivity/zulupad/
DownloadSquad.com
"ZuluPad delivers what you might expect - a very small and quick notepad with wiki functionality."
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/08/02/zulupad-personal-wiki-notepad/
TechSupportAlert.com - Freebie of the Month
"ZuluPad is the most usable implementation I've yet seen for Windows."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/issues/issue146.htm
IHateSheep.co.uk
"I’ve been using Zulupad for a couple of weeks now, and it’s quickly become indispensable."
http://www.ihatesheep.co.uk/articles/tag/zulupad
Sourceforge.net
http://sourceforge.net/projects/zulupad
Freshmeat.net
http://freshmeat.net/projects/zulupad/
Anyway, I hope I've made my case. At the very least, I strongly believe that ZuluPad should appear on the Personal Wiki page, even if User:VanTucky disagrees, but I feel that it should also have its own page here on Wikipedia. Omeomi (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia User Comments Begin Here --Omeomi (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)
- I have top-selling books out in the UK and US, and I write for national newspapers and magazines. I use ZuluPad and have from its early days. It's a useful piece of software. Different and very handy for any writer or researcher.
- One thing is for sure, it needs to be listed on Wikipedia so others can easily find it. Much of the software you find on the web leaves a lot to be desired, even when it is costly. ZuluPad really is different and it's got to be part of any author or writer's software "armory"!
- Anyway, the program gets the thumbs up from me...the world's most famous voodoo doctor ;-)
- Jimmy Lee Shreeve (aka Doktor Snake)
- http://www.doktorsnake.com | http://www.jimmyleeshreeve.com
- ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.227.157 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 23 May 2008
- bernard from RunningWithBulls.com
- Hi there. I am a telecoms engineer working for a well known telecoms vendor. I am inundated with information, tips, tricks, little bits of information that I have to remember to a) make my life easier, b) keep people happy, c) do my job effectively.
- Since 99% of this information is proprietary, and therefore cannot be shared online, or posted to the Internet public (it says so in my contract), I had to look for somewhere to store these sources of information.
- I spent 3 weeks looking for:
-
-
- an application, an installable, easily movable wiki application for my computer.
-
-
- an application that allowed me to link to other pieces of information, in the public Internet.
-
-
- an application that would allow me to share the information via a web browser with my collegues, inside our company firewall.
- Since I found ZuluPad I have used it probably 3-4 hours of my working day, and another 1-2 hours at home every day.
- Every time I need to remember how to do a certain task, I look at the ZuluPad wiki index page and navigate to the link I want.
- I have used it for taking notes, in the middle of a training course, while every one else write on a sheet of paper.
- I get notes created in seconds, instead of minutes.
- And since it is an easy markup language, I can export it out to HTML, and put the files in my webserver folder on my laptop for other collegues to use.
- The definition of a wiki, from this very site states:
- A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language.
- This is exactly what ZuluPad is.
- Stop the nonsense and put the ZuluPad page back.
- If you think this is some sockpuppet speaking, please e-mail me: bATrunningwithbullsDOTcom and I will happily telephone you and explain the other ways I use ZuluPad Wiki at home.
- Its a pity more software isn't as easy and as cheap.
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningwithbulls (talk • contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2008
- Koonaone. I found it disturbing to send the longstanding ZuluPad page link to an associate and have her report back to me that it's defunct. On investigating the matter I find myself here on this page and beyond being disturbed, I'm now perturbed, and confused as well. I'm not about to spend much of my valuable time learning the semiotics of wikipedias word usage but it appears that notability is a salient and recurring focus. Something that's notable is worthy of notice. something that's worthy of notice is ipso facto notable. I assure you all that zuluPad is worthy of notice.
- In my work I am faced with the daunting job of describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined, that is intellectualy incomprehensible without a set of strong hierarchical classification tools, and that works in such a totaly successfully integrated fashion that it is clearly Required that we understand it ASAP. In contrast is my clear conviction that all things in ecosystems actually are interconnected to one extent or another, and that the very tools of analysis we use to view the systemic scale of nature, work against a true human apprehension of the nature of Nature. ZuluPad has proven to be a trusted tool in this never ending chore.
- ZuluPad is one of the only true Brains in my data stream that works in this regard in that ALL inputs to the project wherever they are from, and whatever scale of significance they may have, are easily and creatively entered, and just as creatively assembled again in new ways. My own brain is allowed to do its processing work in its moment without the constraints of hierarchy and with full confidence that the data is not being lost in obscurity. Exploring the true complexity of the linkages between objects isn't marred by any necessity to maintain fiats of order external to my own vision of the day, yet the program faithfully returns my input and allows the vision of a future day to add, ammend, or even delete yesterdays vision. Just like a brain. I consider that to be worthy of notice in the modern arena of pondorous, constrained and generally business oriented applications.
- It is true that the perceptual slant of a programmer, shows through in their software creations sometimes I believe, and there is an accent or dialectic in ZuluPad that is subtle and perhaps could be missed in a cursory examination, perhaps this is what's happening in this unfortunate case.
- I have spent more effort here than intended, all I can hope is that the ZuluPad page be put back where it belongs. Thanks kindly Koonaone (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>Koonaone (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC) — Koonaone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As a user of both Wikipedia and someone who wished to know more about ZuluPad after reading about it on Lifehacker, I would deem ZuluPad to be notable. Everyunitone (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- this is just admin, muscle flex wankery, the dude needs to get off his hitler tip and use his brain. It's notable, include it, end of story. 143.117.78.169 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Too much to read here, lots of opinion and thought. Please delete most of it so only the reliable sources and your points are presented, I don't want a history lesson about the article itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You can see clearly at the end a listing of sources that substantiate the claim that ZuluPad is notable. If you want to skip the history, just take a look at that list. --Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close as outside the scope of this process. If you can manage to get a few lines into the wall of text above, you'll see that the editors are asking for content to be readded to an existing article (e.g., a content dispute), which is not what Deletion review is for (it's for review of deletions). If ZuluPad is indeed worth including in the article Personal Wiki, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page, hopefully in a much shorter form. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- An administrator is refusing to allow it to be re-added to Personal Wiki unless it has it's own page (ZuluPad). That is why I am asking here to allow ZuluPad to be re-created. DGG has it right below.--Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Permit re-creation He recognises that inclusion of computer programs on a list depends on articles, so he wants to be able to reconstitute the article--and include it on the list as well. The inclusion goes with the article, so the basic dispute is in fact over the article. The last sentence of the request makes it clear enough. I see the evidence presented as quite sufficient to permit re-creation. The AfD was 2 years ago. DGG (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- There is no evidence that can be used to verify such an article if it were recreated. Do you want to attempt to cite an article with no reliable sources to be found? Because I sure don't, and recreating an article for which there is no reasonable possibility of verification violates our core policies. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the clarification, DGG.--Omeomi (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Allow recreation per DGG above. I've seen enough here to convince me that an article can be written on the subject. As far as the dispute about Personal wiki, I suggest you look into some dispute resolution with Vantucky, since content disputes are not what DRV does. I have no opinion on the content dispute. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do not allow There is no source material on ZuluPad that meets our definition of reliability. Digg hits and review sites without editorial structure and professional fact checking cannot be used to verify an article. If an article cannot be verified in any way, then we simply cannot have an article on it. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- User:VanTucky has shown a consistent unwillingness or inability to actually check any sources prior to voicing an opinion, and frequently overstates Wikipedia policy. The Record--listed as a source above under Northjersey.com--is a print newspaper serving the New Jersey area. The editor of The Record (Frank Scandale) is shown on this page: The Record (Bergen County). As a professional publication, one could assume that The Record has at least as good an editorial structure as any other print newspaper. Additionally, the very popular Lifehacker has an editorial staff, listed on the Lifehacker Wikipedia page. What's more, the reliability page mentions nothing about a requirement for a source to have an editorial staff, so the online sources should be considered just as much as any other source. I'm left wondering if User:VanTucky has some ulterior motive in this assault on ZuluPad. Why haven't any of the other applications listed on Personal Wiki been forced to provide sources in this manner? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Lifehacker does not meet our reliable source criteria, and neither does a news article for which there is no evidence at all. Please provide a link viewable by all for the article, or stop mentioning it; we can't use an article that isn't available as a source. As for your comments on "ulterior motive", they blatantly violate our behavioral guideline on assuming good faith, and you need to stop that vein of discussion. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, in this case by preventing the creation of an article that clearly fails our requirements for inclusion and fact checking. That's my motive. I haven't taken a look at the other applications on the personal wiki article, but that is irrelevant to this debate. Noting that other stuff exists is not an excuse for allowing another policy violation to continue. VanTucky 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You've provided no evidence that Lifehacker does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. And as for the print article, here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- That is exactly what I am suggesting: the article is not demonstrably findable. You've provided no title, date it appeared, or any other specifics beyond author and paper name that are normally expected to be provided for news sources if they are to be treated as sources. Besides, one decent newspaper article does not necesarily meet our requirements for notability. VanTucky 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I no longer have the article myself, but it was published in November or December of 2007, and was written by columnist Peter Grad in his "Personal Technology" column. I assume there are many libraries in New Jersey that archive this newspaper, and the newspaper could certainly be contacted for back issues. It may not be the best way to cite a source, but it narrows it down enough that it is certainly "demonstrably findable". --Omeomi (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sources like this suck; they're hard to find, and aren't terribly high on the reliable source level. If you aren't actually using it as a source, it's not actually being used a source, which makes it questionable to link, and if you are going to refer to it, I don't think it unreasonable to demand an actual reference, not search through November and December 2007 articles for an article you think is there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know it's there, I remember reading it. The only thing I don't know is the exact date. However, I will do my best to find out exactly when it ran. Besides, how can both online sources and print sources suck? You have to accept _something_ --Omeomi (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is not online or print; it's reliability. Newspapers suck because they're hard to find, and the articles are frequently written on a short deadline with no real second-checking of sources. Online is frequently bad because it's either not independent or it's one guy chattering on a blog or an email list, with absolutely no fact-checking beyond it feels right. But there are some excellent online references.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, then what's wrong with the Lifehacker source? Lifehacker has an Alexa traffic rating of 1,826, so it is certainly not a small site, and the "Download of the Day" article was posted by Gina Trapani, who is the Founding Editor at Lifehacker, according to the Wikipedia Lifehacker page. I think I've posted a wide enough array of sources here to show the ZuluPad is at least notable. I'm not saying it's the most notable thing since the invention of the wheel, but it is notable. --Omeomi (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's what you're not getting about source material: how much traffic a web page gets (i.e. Alexa) or the source's notability have nothing to do with how reliable it is. Reliability is about established editorial structure and fact checking. Lifehacker has neither to a degree necessary to make it fit as a serious source. VanTucky 23:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Lifehacker has an editorial staff. What gives you the expertise to evaluate the quality of their editorial structure or fact-checking ability? Do you have a reliable source that discredits the Lifehacker editorial staff? And if all we're debating at this point is the notability of ZuluPad, it seems to me that the notability of the publication in question is certainly an important factor. --Omeomi (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- (outdent) Guys, just lay off. Talk a walk, get some sleep, and come back later, okay? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Permit recreation; I'd like to see the exact source for that print publication, but several of those links, like to lifehacker, and TechSupportAlert.com are moderately reliable sources. They aren't stunningly reliable, but they're sufficient. (I'd also like to say that I'd hold notability requirements for stuff like this fairly low. We need to know it's not vanity, but it's not controversial or potentially libelous.) The AfD was two years ago, and it seems there's been several new sources in that time, so I think it not too arduous to reAfD it if necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. It seems to me everyone is missing the point. The speedy by VanTucky was proper because the reposted content did not contain any of the sources now asserted above; the repost did not address the reasons for deletion at AfD and thus was a valid G4. This user doesn't need anyone's permission to recreate the article in a form that takes it out of the ambit G4. To do that all that is needed is a new article that cites sources (note: a list of links in an external links section, is not citing sources). Doing this then renders the article not "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted," and thus not subject to G4 speedy deeltion. If someone then believes it's still not notable enough, a new AfD is the way to go. All this citation to sources here is time better spent writing the article in a proper form. Do it offline or in a subpage.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Most of us can't see the reposted content, and I'm not sure that VanTucky wouldn't just speedy the new article anyway. DRV is the way you get this discussion of the range of one user versus one admin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your speculation about what VanTucky would or would not do if some other set of facts was in front of us is off topic. VanTucky's use of CSD G4 was entirely proper. If the article is recreated in a form that no longer meets G4 and is thereafter speedied by any admin then a DRV on that improper speedy would result in an overturn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I believe VanTucky's argument is that ZuluPad is not notable enough for any article to be created about it, regardless of how well written that article may be. That is why I have spent the majority of my effort on establishing notability here. However, if a draft article will help the process, I will begin writing one. --Omeomi (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The reposted content is available in Google Cache here --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- (see new vote below)
Endorse deletion until draft is provided It seems obvious that the old version was correctly deleted. I urge the interested user to make a draft on his userspace using the sources he lists, for example by creating a page at User:Koonaone/ZuluPad, and then present the finished draft at DRV to see if it's worth overturning the original decision. Presenting an uber-long argument with a few sources is not going to help. Seriously, I care about the article itself, I don't care if your work consists of "describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined". --Enric Naval (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I would point out that this Deletion Review was posted by me, User:Omeomi, not User:Koonaone. That last sentence you mention about "describing prognosticatively" was not posted by me, it was posted by User:Koonaone, a user supporting the recreation of the ZuluPad page. My write-up ends above the line "From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)". Some of the comments in the upper part of this page don't fit the standard Wikipedia comment formatting. I'd go through and reformat them, but I'm not sure if it is allowed here. I will begin to work on a draft page at User:Omeomi/ZuluPad, although the debate here has mostly been about whether ZuluPad is notable enough for any article, not about whether the article is sourced correctly. Hopefully nobody deletes my draft while I'm working on it... --Omeomi (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have provided a draft version of a new ZuluPad page here, for everyone's review: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. Comments are welcome of course. --Omeomi (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Since we seem to have moved from a discussion about whether ZuluPad is notable to a discussion about whether factual sources can be provided for an article, I'll start adding more factually-oriented sources to my list of sources above. The Sourceforge and Freshmeat links are new. --Omeomi (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Adding them way up there is worthless, because the mind tends to glaze over when requested to read all of the text. Make a discrete list of what you consider relaible sources, and separate it from the chaff. Corvus cornixtalk 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can see a new draft version of the page, with sources cited, here: User:Omeomi/ZuluPad. --Omeomi (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- comment The present draft I think takes this out of CSD G4 speedy range; that it does not meet the standard of a page "substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. " I also think none of the sources meet the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources and a new AfD will result in deletion, but that it should now be a subject of debate rather than a unilateral speedy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Leave it as a redirect for now
Endorse deletion no independient sources showing notability. The only independient source I can see is the Gizmo page and it only makes a passing mention as one more product of the same type that happens to have good usability. Things like download of the day pages don't show notability, IMHO, since they just happen to feature a different product every day, and give them a glowing endorsement, since they want people to download the product, see other un-critical posts by same author. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have updated the draft User:Omeomi/ZuluPad page with quotes and a cited source to reflect the article from The Record (Bergen County) that was found by Cyber Shepherd below. I hope you will consider reviewing the draft page again. Additionally, these are the sources that I feel are notable enough to establish the notability of ZuluPad: The Record, Lifehacker.com, and Gizmo's Tech Support Alert, and to a lesser extent BestFreeApps.com and DownloadSquad.com. --Omeomi (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't see sources that assert actual notability into the terrain of having its own article. I mean "notability" as in "something worthy of remark" with sources explaining why it should be remarked. However, IMO, there is enough for it to have its own entry on the "personal wiki" article and making Zulupad a redirect to that page would be ok. At the risk of using wikipedia as a crystal ball to see the future, I think that this program will keep increasing its notability, and might one day earn its own article. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- So do you disagree with the argument made on the Personal Wiki Talk Page that "if it's not notable enough for its own article, it's not notable enough for a list article"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reassessment in order? I am new to this so I apologize in advance if I am not posting in the correct manner. To begin with the newspaper referenced above The_Record_(Bergen_County), has the second largest circulation of New Jersey's Daily Newspapers. The article in question that contains a review of Zulupad is titled "Best backup for a hard drive". It was written by Peter Grad "The PC Guy" in the "Better Living" Section on Saturday, October 13, 2007. The article is readily available to anyone with a Factiva or similar account (I am in the process of requesting permission from its author and the newspaper to reprint it in it entirety in a link here...). Here is a quotation toward the end of the article:
ZuluPad is the coolest new text editor to come along in a while. One feature separates this from the crowd: a simple link feature, which turns your documents into an instant hyperlinked system. Write about various topics, each on its own "page." Give a name that describes the topic to each of those pages. Whenever you type a word in future notes that matches the name of a page, the word instantly converts to a link that, when clicked, will bring you to the named page. Students taking notes in class, office workers jotting down information during a phone call, or anyone who needs instant access to stored information on a person or topic will find these hyperlinks extremely helpful.
. The author also notes that Zulupad is both free and available for both PCs and Macs (with an optional paid "pro" version for PCs). I recently listened to an excellent interview with the creator of the first Wiki ever, Ward_Cunningham, who outlines the philosophical underpinnings of Wikis in general This interview can be heard on the FLOSS Weekly podcast produced by Leo Laporte. Link to show ZuluPad embodies the spirit of programming that Mr.Cunningham espouses: it's simple, elegant, and powerful. As a last note, I would like to submit that ZuluPad has been enormously helpful to me in my work at Teachers_College,_Columbia_University, where I have used the application to organize the schedules of more than 60 academic specialists in their site visits to the more than 200 public schools in New York City. For anyone who has ever been hamstrung by the limitations of MS Access or Excel in creating layers of inter-related searchable data that are also easily understood by non-technical users, ZuluPad is a welcome breath of fresh air. Please let's reassess the deletion of the ZuluPad article. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.--Cyber Shepherd (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Cyber Shepherd (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC) — Cyber_Shepherd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
-
- I touched the above comment to convert an inline reference into a external link. I also touched the wording of the link a bit. See, "ref" tags are usually invisible on talk pages and and discussion pages like this one, you shouldn't use them outside of articles, drafts, essays and policy/guideline pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to find the article in The Record Cyber Shepherd! Much appreciated. I have updated the draft User:Omeomi/ZuluPad article with some quotes and a citation to this article. --Omeomi (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse Deletion. User:Omeomi/ZuluPad looks to be better written and more complete that the version which was deleted as a G4, but it still lacks reliable sourcing. The improved writeup of the software in the new article is almost 100% based on the maker's website and does not represent the opinions of any third parties. Having the software be approved by Lifehacker is worthwhile but they don't provide enough coverage to offer any actual content of their own that can be added to the article. (Lifehacker wrote about 40 words about it, plus they included a quote from ZuluPad's marketing material). The new draft of the article has 23 footnotes, nearly all of them pointing back to the maker's website. There's also the 40-word treatment in Lifehacker as another footnote, and the local Bergen County newspaper which apparently liked it but did not do an in-depth review. (The article was 983 words and was primarily about some kind of a backup tool, as the title "Best Backup for a Hard Drive" implies). The 'instant hyperlinked' feature that is mentioned above is common to nearly all wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd just like to point out that you say that the article doesn't represent the opinions of any third parties, and then you go on to list some of the third parties who's opinions are sourced in the article. And the links to the maker's website are used to provide factual information about the application, not opinions. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to reference the maker's website for things such as which operating systems an application will run on, and whether or not it is open source. --Omeomi (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 Remark: Ah, so, this post on Zulupad forums is why we were getting comments from users of the program who had just registered an account, as well as old users who had stopped contributing for months. The post is very neutrally worded "If you feel that ZuluPad should have a place on Wikipedia, your comments on these pages would be warmly appreciated" so I don't think that it counts as WP:CANVASSing at all. They must have reused the post that announced the AfD on 2006, that's why it shows a 2006 date despite linking to the 2008 DRV --Enric Naval (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Solicitation of comments off-wiki for a vote like an DRV seems like canvassing. Do you think it's a neutral request, with the title ZuluPad needs your help on Wikipedia? EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I've seen worse, and this one was done on good faith and asked people to comment and not to vote. I see that they have removed it now and apologized for it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Considering this is a deletion review, asking people who "feel that ZuluPad should have a place on Wikipedia" to comment seems like blatant canvassing for vote-stacking. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I doubt that the user making that post was aware of these finer points, or knew of the difference between AfD and DRV, that's why I see it as a good faith petition for help. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, the new writeup only has one reliable source, the reference to the New Jersey Record, which isn't even a link to an online archive. All of the other references are either self-references or not reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Insufficient sources. dorftrottel (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion – Only one source that might satisfy WP:V (the newspaper). Regardless of the earlier debate, the Lifehacker link is a effectively a passing mention, and the rest are fansites or the software site itself. There's just not enough here to satisfy WP:N or WP:V. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. This is not AfD round two, the original decision was correct, as for recreation, as most of the other readers have pointed out, there is nothing that would allay the WP:N, WP:V and RS concerns. MrPrada (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe, possibly, an acceptable article written entirely from reliable sources could exist, but this isn't it. Regurgitating marketing material and tacking on an "Oh, I think it got a passing mention once in the middle of a tech column somewhere but I'm too lazy to track it down" doesn't cut it. Endorse and salt until such an article is presented. —Cryptic 17:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be accurate, that tech column was most certainly tracked down. This is mentioned by Cyber Shepherd above: "The article in question that contains a review of Zulupad is titled 'Best backup for a hard drive'. It was written by Peter Grad 'The PC Guy' in the "Better Living" Section on Saturday, October 13, 2007. The article is readily available to anyone with a Factiva or similar account". --Omeomi (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- And it's not used to reference anything that would remain in an unbiased article. —Cryptic 05:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Housekeeping note: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi - There is legitimate suspicion, but no solid proof, that User:Cyber Shepherd may be a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi. Regardless, Cyber Shepherd has no edits outside this DRV and his userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- If I had the source for the article, why wouldn't I have just posted it rather than coming up with some sort of elaborate scheme of having a fake university professor post it. Go ahead and do a checkuser. In fact, please do, because right now you're accusing me of something without having any evidence for it whatsoever. I don't know Cyber Shepherd aside from his postings here. --Omeomi (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
|
