Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw Project
AfDs for this article:
- ConceptDraw Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a writeup of a commercial product written by someone with a conflict of interest. Having been deleted it was userfied and guess what? Straight back to mainspace. Virtually all edits to this article are by single-purpose accounts which can be directly linked with trivial research to the company. Call me cynical, but I have a tendency to believe that the intersection between genuinely notable products and products which nobody outside the company thought to write up on Wikipedia, is the null set.
The problem here is that the sources are not independent. A press release does not become an independent source simply by virtue of being printed in a trade journal. And an advertisement does not become an article simply by virtue of citing the content to trade journals which say what the company tells them. And a conflict of interest does not become neutrality through that process, either. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- So, it's "sources problem" again? CSOWind (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- I've added lots of sources for such small article - 10 references and not only press releases but mostly reviews from well-known resources. As for the "neutrality", I can't understand what do you mean - I didn't use words like "perfect solution", "best", "great" or any other estimations. Just a list of main features and common short information about the product history and it's notability. Btw, such work with other apps in it's pack is a distinctive and unique feature which deserved (from my point of view) to be mentioned in Wikipedia. Any comments and arguments will be highly appreciated. Sincerely yours, CSOWind (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The reviews by MacUser and Macworld are enough to establish notability. Trade journals as a category should not be dismissed as playthings of their advertisers, although a few are. Most trade journals realize that they will attract and retain readers only if they provide reliable and relevant information. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Per the MacUser and Macworld reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Eastmain's above comments. 7OA That's a letter in the middle, folks. 22:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Keep some trade journals do print a lot of PR. That's usually fairly easy to spot--in any reasonably reputable journal, if they do reprint PR, the PR is indicated as being an extensive quote from the producer, or by using terms of the general nature, "according to the company, this program..." Or, the sort of words CSOWind indicates. The journals cited here are reliable. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt Multiple recreations, fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. This was just deleted, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ConceptDraw_PROJECT. Trivial mentions with "limited interest and circulation", does not establish notability, no matter who they paid to review. Obviously the system is being gamed heavily.
- See Spam case and Sockpuppet investigation
- Multiple recreated articles;
- ConceptDraw PROJECT
- delete log
- 19:31, 5 October 2009 deleted "ConceptDraw PROJECT" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ConceptDraw PROJECT) (view/restore)
- 14:40, 16 September 2009 Nihonjoe (talk | contribs | block) 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
- delete log
- 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')
- ConceptDraw Project Current
- delete log
- 06:51, 13 June 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (CSD A7/G11; content was: '{{Infobox Software|name = ConceptDraw Project|caption = [http ://www.conceptdraw.com/en/products/project/ ConceptDraw Project]|developer = [[Compute...')
- 18:33, 31 March 2007 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (blatant advert)
- 20:29, 29 July 2006 deleted "ConceptDraw Project" (closing prod uncontested since 24 July)
- Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote ConceptDraw software products. --Hu12 (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)