- ConceptDraw Office (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- ConceptDraw MINDMAP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
- ConceptDraw PRO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
These pages were deleted by Hu12 (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD G11, after CSOWind (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for spamming. The articles, however, do not appear to be blatantly promotional, but generally descriptive of the softwares. Especially given the no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project, I believe that there is a substantial chance that the articles will be kept at AfD. DRVs brought by CSOWind evading their yesterday were speedy closed by JzG (talk · contribs) despite DGG's and my !votes to overturn. After discussing this with JzG I was minded to let things stay as they are for a while, but apparently those deletions are now used to justify deleting an article that has already survived an AfD. Therefore, as I consider the deletions here to be improper under G11, I ask that they be overturned and send to AfD. Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No compelling reason to undelete these particular articles. Furthermore, the project was kept as "no consensus", making it unlikely they are sufficiently notable to have articles on their individual products. Furthermore, it is clear that these articles were created for promotion. Triplestop x3 00:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the main "project" is ConceptDraw Office; ConceptDraw Project is a software in that "project". Promotional purposes aka WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ConceptDraw PROJECT, was a recreation of a page that was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. To ignore that fact intentionaly(in nom above), yet base a multi-article DRV on a "no consensus " XfD is not very compelling rational to undelete. Additionaly, the term "Promotional purposes" does not imply "aka WP:COI", nor is "COI" a reason to keep, particularly when the deletion rational wasn't COI.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was userfied and subsequently restored to mainspace after improvements by MuZemike (talk · contribs), who closed the first AfD. There is nothing improper here, especially when a later, well-attended AfD revealed no consensus to delete. The fact is that the text of the articles, though created for promotional purposes, are not blatantly promotional to be speediable. Tim Song (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, this DRV is WP:NOTINHERITED, or should it be based on some other article's "no consensus" Sockpuppeted XfD. It would be a bit misguided to do so, as it suggests that Wikipedia has some inherent obligation to host innapropriate spam articles, which of course, we all know, wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppeted? Please list an example of votestacking during that AfD. I just reread it, and found none. WP:INHERITED is good and all, I cite it myself; but an AfD on the Mindmap software was closed as keep over notability issues - not the most stellar of debates, I'd admit, but that's indication of its notability nonetheless. And a software suite containing multiple pieces of notable software is likely notable. We certainly do not have an obligation to host spam - but IIRC, except for WP:CSD G5, dealing with banned editors, we do not delete an article because of the identity of its creator, but let the article stand or fall on its own content. My position is that speedy deleting apparently neutrally-written and verifiable articles on notable subjects simply because their authors wrote them to promote the products is against WP:CSD, which is policy, and our ultimate goal here, which is to build an encyclopedia. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete all and merge I've !voted on some of these before and I believe there is plenty of notability for an article. I don't think we need 4, or 8 or whatever, but 1 should do. If after that someone wants to send them to AfD I've no objection, but it will clearly meet WP:N in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion.These are non-consumer software packages aimed at a very small technical market with "limited interest and circulation". Even if merged theres only trivial and paid product reviews, which won't be enough to establish notability. Obvious self-promotional creations and all are Spam.--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion at this time. These articles are admitted by the creator and his numerous "friends" to be the work of people in the company. The intersection of genuinely notable things, and things which are not documented on Wikipedia until their company comes along to create them, is as close to the null set as you can get. Also I am strongly opposed to rewarding spammers, especially block-evading sockpuppeting spammers. At the very least this should be left until someone provably not connected with the company can come along with a new article that is not the work of people with a conflict of interest. Did I mention that I despise spammers? Guy (Help!) 09:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you admins start to follow the bloody procedure now, please and thank you?
The "delete" button is there for you to use when there's (a) a valid speedy criterion, (b) an expired prod, or (c) a rough consensus to delete at AfD. It is not for use just because you feel like it, and the sheer number of recent DRVs involving cases where admins are deleting material on their own authority "because it's obvious it should be deleted", is beginning to worry me. Send it to AfD where we can have a proper discussion lasting the proper amount of time so this material can be deleted properly, thoroughly, and finally. Out-of-process deletions cause unnecessary drama and they end up taking more of your time than in-process ones.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:58, 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.
-
- log
- 05:16, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- 07:48, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
- 13:56, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw Office" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
- 10:08, 11 September 2009 . . NaumenkoSvetlana ←Created page
- log
- 08:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: "Computer Systems Odessa" Using Wikipedia for advertising purposes see spam case)
- 08:40, 23 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created page
- 13:53, 11 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of :http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mmforproject/main.php)
- 12:45, 3 September 2008 . . Gi-ant ← Created page
- 00:26, 12 June 2008 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" (G11: Blatant advertising)
- 15:19, 22 February 2007 . . Jusperstb ←Created page
- 20:53, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MINDMAP" (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
- 11:00, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←moved
- 07:54, 25 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
- log
- 12:01, 8 August 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" (R1 applies - content was: 'db-redirnone #REDIRECT ConceptDraw MINDMAP')
- 11:00, 25 May 2006 CSOWind ←moved
- 08:36, 24 May 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw MindMap" (content was: 'db-copyvio|url=http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/mindmap/overview.php')
- 07:36, 24 May 2006 . . CSOWind ←Created page
- log
- 05:19, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PRO" (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: spam)
- 11:37, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Created page
- log
- 05:21, 26 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw" (G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page)
- 11:38, 15 September 2009 . . Danilsomsikov ←Redirected
- 09:38, 15 September 2009 . . CSOWind ←Created
- 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
- log
- 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw V" (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
- log
- 06:23, 12 September 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 7" (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
- 08:31, 30 May 2007 . . Master-zzz41 ←Redirected
- log
- 10:28, 10 July 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw 8" (Speedy deleted per CSD G11, was blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something. using TW)
- 10:27, 10 July 2009 . . Kozovaya ←created
- 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) 17:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletions – If someone wants to recreate the articles in a neutral, non-advertorial way, then please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, I have to agree with Miami here in that overturning them would encourage such spamming in the future. MuZemike 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undelete, merge, and watch. Alternatively, someone else remake & take responsibility for them, DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No undeletion without a userspace version by someone not connected to the company. This company and its main product line probably do pass our notability threshold (barely, although as pointed out elsewhere by several people including me, the question of whether a few product reviews consitutes significant independent coverage is debatable). As DGG hints above and says outright in the November 6 debate below, one article on the whole line would make a lot more sense. But I do believe we have to err on the side of being draconian when someone is gaming the system to advance their own interests--we simply cannot allow CSOWind's tactics here to stand. If someone else wants to take this thing over, genuinely and neutrally, fine. But as they stand, these articles violate our policies because they constitute astroturfing, regardless of the notability of the products. Chick Bowen 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd be willing to merge the articles if they are undeleted and survive an AfD, and take out any residual hints of adverty-ness, but forgive me if I'm unwilling to start working from scratch when there's a neutrally-written version to start with; and when they may turn out to be non-notable in the community's view. I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility. Tim Song (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks. I've userfied these to User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw PRO, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw MINDMAP, User:Tim Song/ConceptDraw Office. As you say, you should retrict your efforts to what you feel willing to do, keeping in mind that there has never really been a hearty endorsement of all this. On the other hand, I think a single article would be more likely to stand than the individual ones. Chick Bowen 18:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not endorsed nor is there any appearence of consensus for userfication at this point. Particularly when stated explicitly "I'm unwilling to devote my time to something when it may well be an exercise in futility.". The move reasoning of "userfy per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 7" is contradictory. I would advise reverting the move untill consensus for such action is determind.--Hu12 (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't get this, Hu12. We normally userfy on request. You're certainly right that there's no consensus that this should exist in article space. But it would be unprecedented not to allow someone to work on a draft in userspace. If Tim doesn't want to work on it, that's his business, and if this DRV endorses it's deletion, that's their business. Chick Bowen 00:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to help Tim with this. It would be all the easier, Hu,if you joined in also, It can hardly take much more work for all of us together to do an article than to engage in all the parallel arguments. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Deletion - unacceptable spamming and astroturfing. Eusebeus (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion spamming should not be tolerated here. ThemFromSpace 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|