- ConceptDraw Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
No consensus, closed as keep. A few days ago on DRV several of this companies products were all deleted as it was shown that the pages were made in an orchestrated campaign to spam Wikipedia. While they were at DRV, this was at AfD. In the interests of WP:RBI, I think as a unique case this AfD closure should have been no consensus, delete. (I have not notified the closing admin, but I will. I find no fault with their rationale.) Useful discussion to read User_talk:JzG#ConceptDraw_DRVs. - Miami33139 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both DGG and I opined in those DRVs that the G11s were improper before they were speedy closed. If you insist on using those speedy closes as precedent here I'll have no other choice but to bring a new DRV for those. Endorse. Tim Song (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such close, and there never should be, as "no consensus, delete". All such closes are not merely out of policy, but completely opposed to policy. Had such as close been made, that is what should have been appealed here. If you wanted a second AfD you should have asked for one, & if consensus remained the same as for the previous ones for the same reason, you might be able to get it that way--it would have been less complicated than trying it like this. My own view is that the close on this one is the correct close, and there is no good reason to delete the article no matter who made it. I am quite bothered by the early DRV close on the others, but I on my talk p. advised against pursuing it further on the grounds it would likely not be successful. My advice may have been wrong. FWIW, Tim and I make most of our joint appearances at AfD or DRV on opposite sides. The discussion of JzG's page shows the inadvisability of judging articles according to who wrote them. That and the present discussions shows the utter inadvisability of closing a contentious DRV or AfD early, or of assuming from the first few responses that no other response is possible. The simplest course, in any event, is for someone other than the sockmaster to make an article good enough to stand--a course JzG would apparently not object to (indeed, how could he possibly?) I'd adopt it myself except it's not really my subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse (unfortunately) Policy dictates COI is not a reason to delete. Triplestop x3 02:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse per DGG and Tim Song (and even a bit of Triplestop!). Hobit (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete, per. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. AlsoSpam case --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was not aware of the previous versions which were deleted, but after looking at those revisions I don't think WP:CSD#G4 really applies. The deleted revisions do not only describe the software, but also extolled the product's virtues, such as how easy it is to manage resources is with the software. That content was probably the type of content targeted by WP:CSD#G11. The current revision lacks the reviews which were brought up on the AFD, but the descriptive text is fairly neutrally worded. There was not a blatant violation of core policy which mandated deletion in this case. Regarding the closure, I saw several established and regular good faith contributors supporting retention, for instance Davewild, Eastmain, and DGG all made reasonable policy based arguments. JzG, and Chick Bowen among others made a reasonable case for deletion, so there wasn't much of a consensus. The deletion policy says that a rough consensus is needed for deletion, and I couldn't really see that here. If the current article were pure spam, I think the consensus would have been to delete. Do I agree that reviews are sufficient to establish notability for software products? I am actually somewhat undecided on the issue, and it depends a bit on the type of product. Many common products receive reviews or are covered in product comparison tests in consumer magazines, and not all those products are really all that interesting from an encyclopedic point of view. I think all Norwegian brands of orange juice have been reviewed, but I wouldn't support articles on all orange juice products for that reason. On the other hand, reviews of computer games and video games (which have an artistic element in addition to a mere functional one) are sources considered highly relevant in those articles, and do contribute to the notability of those subjects. In the end, I don't think the closer should be giving his/her own opinion much weight in determining the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a truly disturbing case involving 15 WP:SPA accounts, actively 'gamed the system' through the use of Meatpuppetry and Sockpuppetry, for the sole and primary purpose if using wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "ConceptDraw" software related products.
-
- ConceptDraw PROJECT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- log
- 05:54, 14 October 2009 CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page to ConceptDraw Project)
- 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
- 14:40, 16 September 2009 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- log
- 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
- 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov (29 bytes) (←Redirected page
- 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind (2,679 bytes) (←Created page
- 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')
- 17:11, 26 April 2006 . . Csodessa (←created page
- ConceptDraw Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Current
- log
- 09:19, 16 September 2009 CSOWind (2,124 bytes) (←created page
- 05:18, 6 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
- 11:51, 30 September 2009 . . CSOWind (33 bytes) (←Redirected page
- 12:21, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (151 bytes) (←created page
- 11:40, 11 September 2009 NaumenkoSvetlana (1,170 bytes) (←created page
- 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (CSD A7/G11; content was: '((Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption
- 07:45, 23 May 2007 . Master-zzz41 (1,511 bytes) (←created page
- 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (blatant advert)
- 10:14, 23 February 2007 . Jusperstb (←created page
- 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
- As documented, Multiple instances of sneaky recreation attempts to circumvent Wikipedia policies and procedures, Use of tricks in creating NN Spam articles, creating a titles as a redirects, Creating a seemingly legitimate articles then changing them around in order to avoid and curcumvent legitimate deletions. Allowing confirmed sock/meat puppets to activly evading blocks, create DRV's, and to promote their own agenda is "Gaming the system" and an abuse of process, which is disruptive. These are nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I share your concerns about the behavior; the solution is to let a single legitimate article be written and to watch it. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin of the 1st AFD – I felt that my interpretation of the consensus in the AFD was correct at the time. However, I did help out in userfying the page as well as helping the now-indef-blocked user in sourcing and establishment of notability. Having looked at the 2nd AFD and the article's improvement since the 1st AFD (i.e. removal of spam and other issues that distance the article from when it was before I deleted it the first time), I'm leaning towards endorse close on the 2nd AFD, especially given that other users beside those helped out in making it into what I think is an acceptable article. MuZemike 01:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|