Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjd0060 (talk | contribs) at 22:38, 24 April 2012 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderGraph chart

SpiderGraph chart (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 article has many faults. It fails WP:N. It appears to be based on a single 1985 journal article by G. L. Chester / User:GregLChest. Secondary sources endorsing this particular chart are absent. The SpiderChart may not even pass WP:DUE. References 12 (Programmable Controls Magazine) and 13 (Plant Engineering Magazine) are narrow publications; neither quotation suggest the authors are skilled in the field. Other journal sources (e.g., Lurie) extoll the virtues of charts for decision making, but no indication that those sources mention SpiderGraphs. If the chart is notable, then there should be secondary sources that cover it. A similar chart is already addressed at Radar chart, but User:GregLChest claims unsourced distinctions with that chart. The thrust of SpiderGraph chart#SpiderGraph chart vs. Radar (spider) chart and SpiderGraph chart#References of Radar chart Naming Confusion sections is a WP:NOR argument that other sources are wrong in that they fail to distinguish a SpiderGraph from a radar chart aka spider chart. That is advocacy rather than a WP:NPOV. There are links to blogs. The primary editor here has a WP:COI in that he is the author of the 1985 article. The CamelCase title (SpiderGraph) and component (FeatureLine) suggest an advertising tone that touts Chester, Divelbiss Corp., and Chester's current company GLC New Product Consultants. (See external link to GLCNPC website and article illustrations.) Chester has trademarked the name SpiderGraph, and he has made a cease and desist or pay royalty demand for its use. Glrx (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: If you would have read the SG article and understood it, you would have observed by example, that the Radar spider chart is nothing like the SpiderGraph, for all the reasons stated in the article! (The Radar spider chart article's author has just infringed on my Trademark, along with 40+ other companies, not knowing the difference between the 2 types of charts! - I don't know who inserted this allegation, but GregLChest did not!) Gregory L. Chester 23:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC) The Radar chart makes Trade-off decisions by estimating the area of their patterns. The SG doesn't estimate, it can actually calculate what the final decision is! NOTE: Don't always believe what you read! Gregory L. Chester 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Glrx (Response to Reply To Author's Comments) RE: WP:AfD/SpiderGraph chart

Glrx Comments from 3 April 2012:

What WP wants to see is pretty simple. The SpiderGraph has been around since 1985. If the SpiderGraph is notable, then it should be easy to find some independent secondary references that discuss SpiderGraphs. It's easy to find references (and even criticism) for the radar chart and its many aliases. Even NIST covers them in a guide to statistics.[2] Where is that sort of coverage for the SpiderChart? The original journal article, a narrow industrial automation handbook, and where else? Why aren't SpiderGraphs on Friendly's comprehensive list? (Chernoff's face charts made it.) Why isn't it covered in data visualization texts? If the SpiderGraph is not being noticed and reported on, then it is not notable for WP's purposes. (INCORRECT ASSUMPTION! - The SpiderGraph chart was developed for "In House Use" (before the Excel Radar charting Method was developed) and Not Advertised, but still turned out to be a better "calculative design" for making Trade-off Decisions! (The amount of Advertising has nothing to do with the accuracy of the Method!) The Microsoft Corp. used their large Advertising Budget to sell their Excel software package because that's their business, unfortunately it was discovered when researching Radar charts, that their users didn't like their "estimation method" of making Trade-off Decisions! (WP:MNA) (Refer to the "Six Comments" section of the article that a non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted)

You claim that SpiderGraphs are better than radar charts, but that claim is original research or synthesis without independent, reliable sources that actually make those observations. (NOT TRUE! A Non-technical Reviewing Editor deleted the "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart" composed from other articles, which proved my impartial statements as being correct!) WP is driven by reliable sources. Without such sources, material may be challenged and deleted. (WP:MNA would suggest that "calculated" decisions are better than "estimated" decisions!)

textwalling from author
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please be informed that the SpiderGraph chart was developed January 1981 (w/o any knowledge of what a Radar chart was and Microsoft had not yet developed Excel software!). The SG chart was designed for "Internal Company Use Only" to train Omron's PLC sales people how to select the correct product to sell to their customers for their specific control applications. It was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it!

References for Non-technical Reviewing Editors:

  • What is a PLC? What do I have to consider when choosing a PLC?

(American manufacturers: Allen-Bradley | GE Fanuc | Schneider) http://amci.com/tutorials/tutorials-what-is-programmable-logic-controller.asp

  • List of Foreign PLC Manufacturers (see #5):

http://www.arcweb.com/market-studies/pages/plc-china.aspx


In 1985, a Trade Magazine Editor that normally published an annual review of all PLCs had heard about the SG Chart PLC selection method and asked this designer to write an article describing the use of the SG chart, because there was nothing like it! Up until that time, information about the SG chart was "not released to the public!" Shortly after the article was published, the Editor of "The Standard Handbook for Industrial Automation"called the designer to ask if he could include the article in the Industry's HB he was writing.

NOTE: The Editor of "The Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation" realized that such a Notable Charting Method could have been used by "all" PLC Manufactures to aid in selecting which of their products would best suit a given customer's application! (which was VERY NOTABLE!)

Side Note regarding WP Admin selection: Just as an HR person would do using the SG chart, select qualifying questions for an Admin and place them on the SG (SFC) chart FeatureLines. If the questions are to long, just number them, with a numbered list next to the Interviewer. Make a SG chart for each candidate's answers and then later compare them to select the best person for the job!

In 1999, sale of the "universal Visual Decision-making SpiderGraph charting Method" began by "using only MetaTags in a Website to attract Search Engines" to the GLCNPC eCommerce Website, but the name was still hidden and hard to find on the Website and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition, unless it was specifically requested! However, since there were no Press Releases or Advertising, the Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby.

My word "SpiderGraph" was Trademarked on Feb. 18, 2003. Later, on March 10, 2008, an "Infingement Notice" was emailed to 10-15 companies concerning their use of my word "SpiderGraph" on their own Radar spider charts. (That was the Author's first introduction and response to Radar Chart users!) (NOTE: This Author of the WP SpiderGraph chart NEVER STATED that the Author of the WP Radar spider chart had infringed upon my trademark!! That thought never entered my mind, because there was never an infringement, the two charts are not the same!)

During January of 2011, it became time to renew my trademark certification. So I contacted the Trademark Board to renew my trademark of my word "SpiderGraph". On 2/10/2011, an Office Action email from a Trademark Examining Attorney was received, stating that my Trademark could not be renewed because the word was now considered "generic." They included 40 examples of the word being used by other companies. All 40 examples were later proven to be an "infringement of my Trademark" because all 40 examples were shown to be dated after 2/18/2003, the date of the original Trademark! (NO LEGAL ACTION WAS EVER ANTICIPATED BECAUSE INFRINGEMENT WAS BELIEVED TO BE ACCIDENTAL, DUE TO CONFUSION, AND NOT INTENT!) The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements. (at that time, the Author used only the WP:Radar chart article as a reference for the impartial comparisons throughout the article! It was later pointed out that WP Articles should not be used as a source.)

At some point during the article's time at AfC, a Reviewing Editor "Tagged the Article as not having enough Citations!" (WP:NOR) Upon doing additional research, it was learned that the Microsoft Excel Radar charting method was the most popular Trade-off Decision-making method being advertised, because that's there main business, and therefore, the most widely known and used method! Unfortunately, it was also learned that many of its users were dissatisified with the Excel Radar charting method, which uses estimation as a way to make decisions! (Refer to the deleted Section of the SpiderGraph chart article "Six Comments Regarding Limitations of the Radar chart.")

Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website and later lost user's interest due to the virtues of Search Engines! However, when the Apple iPad was developed with the largest screen found on tablet computers, it was discovered that now there was a device that could allow construction of the SpiderGraph chart by its user! In the last 1.5 years, this Author has been developing Instructions and software developement help aids to permit an RFQ to be sent out for the software development of an iPad Business App.

Delete as nominator. Chester's claims at Talk:SpiderGraph chart#Objection to Deletion and Response to Reviewing Editor's Concerns are not persuasive, and they fail to understand the axis-order and linear/sqrt scaling problems of the radar chart (and how those faults directly carry over to a SpiderGraph). In particular, there are no cited sources saying SpiderGraphs do not have the faults of radar charts. I came across this article while reviewing User:Mabdul's RFA; see WP:Requests for adminship/Mabdul Question 5 about the SpiderGraph chart article, where Mabdul states, "My opinion is that this article shouldn't have been accepted since I still see the problem that it lacks indendent[sic] and reliable reference, it is not encyclopedic written and needs a cleanup which was also confirmed by User:CharlieEchoTango." Glrx (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm shocked that Glrx could not be persuaded by the impartial comparisons made in the SG chart article and while he may know about the effects of Geometry on the Radar chart, saying that those faults directly carry over to a SG chart, IS TOTALLY UNTRUE! The SG chart does not use Geometry, because the chart is hand-drawn, not computer-drawn! One does not need sources when the facts are obvious to the casual observer! (WP:MNA)

As to my reason to comment on your Talk Page directly, I wanted to prove a point with the Person's own remarks and not call them out, but you came back telling me I should learn how to Indent! Please know that I answered Mabdul & CET's accusations directly and proved they were non-technical and didn't know what they were talking about, so now they still want the SG Article deleted! Doesn't the Truth or being impartial & Neutral matter at all any more! Isn't that being spiteful or is it just plain prejudice or maybe there's a BarnStar fraternity that I don't know about?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete. A Google Books search shows that "Spider graphs" are actually notable, but that they are the same as Radar charts. Quality problems with this article suggest a merge is not a good idea. -- 202.124.73.150 (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Doesn't anyone read an article before they want to delete it?? Within the SG article is a section called "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion." What quality problems are you referring to or haven't you read the SG chart article either?? Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From "Revision History of Radar chart" (cur | prev) 09:38, 7 January 2012‎ Mabdul (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,963 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by GregLChest (talk): Err, why did you sign that again? -_-. (TW)) (undo)

NOTE: I don't know what Mabdul "Reverted in good faith," but GregLChest MADE NO CHANGES! (However, It looks like someone rearranged this article and added a SpiderGraph chart reference to the "See also" section!) Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 12:26, 3 January 2012‎ GregLChest (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,011 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (Copied Spider chart Image for my SpiderGraph Article - I made no changes!) (undo)

Speaking about Mabdul's Faith: He stated that he stopped Citing me because "he lost his Faith" in the SG chart article, so he restored the section that he had deleted! He doesn't state that his only reason for deleting the section in the first place was, he couldn't see the "value" (of 3 articles about Decision-making) being listed in the SG "Decision-making" chart article??

Glrx made the comment that I wore-out Mabdul, so he just gave in and restored the section he deleted! Don't you think that the Truth had something to do with that??

Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester

PS - I'd like to talk to the Greetings Person that said, "Welcome to Wikipedia, writing an article will be easy, have fun with it!" Gregory L. Chester 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

  • Comment - as I'm not an expert in statistics, I have placed the {{expert-subject}} tag on the article for further review by other statistics experts here on Wikipedia. This said, Gregory, for the article, I am EXTREMELY concerned that you have trademarked this and are posting it on Wikipedia - this raises some serious flags for conflict of interest and a desire to use Wikipedia as a promotional mechanism. Moreover, the extensive commentary above is entirely unnecessary - fixing the problems as seen, or a simple rebuttal as to why these are not issues, are the Right Thing - and if further explanation to your rebuttal is requested, that's the best time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN: Dennis The Tiger, regarding your concerns.
1) Your EXTREME CONCERNS regarding the word "SpiderGraph" being trademarked. PLS NOTE: all mentions of "trademark" and their icons (R)&(TM) where long ago removed from the SG chart article!
2) As far as PROMOTION, ADVOCACY, or ADVERTISING are concerned, this Author has no product to sell!
3) As to the above extensive commentary being necessary, most comments regarding the SG chart article and demands for its deletion are unfounded or usually from non-technical Reviewing Editors that may not have understood the article, so I believe that some clarification is required. How can there be a simple rebuttal when the other party doesn't understand what you're talking about?
4) This author's motivation here is quite simple: Wikipedia is used as a complete authority on most things encyclopedic. However, as far as I know, WP only touts one method to make trade-off decisions, the Radar chart. Unfortunately, according to the article itself, mentioned under the "Limitations" section and by many of its users, the "Radar charts have been criticized as poorly suited for making trade-off decisions. Further, it is hard to visually compare lengths of different spokes, because radial distances are hard to judge." Fortunately, for the user desiring better accuracy when making trade-off decisions, WP could show their impartiality by offering a more accurate alternative method, by admitting the SpiderGraph chart article to be part of the WP free encyclopedia. The SG chart can be drawn by free-hand, w/o the use of a computer, that requires a Spreadsheet & the Excel software package, which introduces Geometry to present a chart display, that is then used to estimate a decision. Gregory L. Chester 22:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete I am extremely concerned by the apparent WP:Conflict of interest by the article's writer, who is acting as a WP:Single-purpose account here; the WP:TLDR responses only make it worse. Okay, so this SpiderGraph chart is a product among many, and it differs ever so slighty from the others (which product doesn't?). The majority of the current article tries to show this difference from normal spider charts. However, this screams advertisement to me, and wikipedia shouldn't be a plateform for this kind of material. Any general stuff should be mentioned (along with non-promotional sources) in the Spider chart article, e.g. to illustrate minor possible deviations, the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes. – sgeureka t•c 10:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN. Sgeureka, regarding your concerns:
My concern is, that if this discussion is TL and you DR it, why are you even commenting on it? PLS NOTE: These discussions are long because non-technical people have made their concerns known and have proven that they are confused or don't know what they are talking about! I have only tried to clear up their confusion! Did you even read #4 of the above response to Dennis The Tiger??
Now to address your confusion:
  • 1) The SpiderGraph is a one-of-a-kind! (Not a product among many!)
  • 2) If you would have looked it the examples in the article or even read it, you would have noticed that the differences are "major" and not "ever so slighty[sic]!" The charts are nothing alike, except that they may appear to look like a spider's web, when finished.
  • 3) This SG article does not "scream advertisement," however it does make note of a new, more accurate, alternative method to making trade-off decisions, that competes with the only other method, presently mentioned on the Wikipedia encyclopedia plateform[sic], that its users are dissatified with! The major difference between the charts is "calculation vs estimation."
  • 4) "Any general stuff should be mentioned in the 'Spider chart' article, ... the rest is simply WP:UNDUE in my eyes." Sgeureka please note, this article is titled "SpiderGraph chart!" The Radar (spider) chart article is sometimes being incorrectly confused with the SpiderGraph chart! I think you should read the Radar chart article! You are one of the reasons that the SG article was written!
This Information is being Respectfully Offered,
Gregory L. Chester 17:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment by nominator Chester's long comments above show that SpiderGraph has not been noticed by the public (so it is not notable) and that his motive for writing the article is to preserve and promote his trademark.
  1. The SG was hidden from the public. Chester states that the SG was developed in January 1981 but "it was kept under wraps to avoid Competitors from learning about it!"
  2. The SG is not notable. In 1999, Chester tried to sell SG through his website, but "the name was still hidden and hard to find ... and later dropped off the Search Engines by attrition."
  3. The SG did not have much impact. "Website stopped being useful for sales and became just a Hobby."
  4. Chester admits no significant impact. "Since 1985, the SpiderGraph charting method was used by "only" the developer's company, GLC New Product Consultants, Inc., and sold as a Hobby on its Website"
  5. Chester trademarked SG in 2003 and sent several infringement notices.
  6. When Chester tried to renew his trademark in 2011, the Trademark Board told him that the term was a generic term (apparently for radar chart) and would not be renewed. Chester disputed the finding with the Trademark Board.
  7. Now we get to motive. "The Examining Attorney suggested that an article or definition suggesting that there's a difference between Radar spider charts and SpiderGraph charts, be published to cut down on confusion and future infringements."
  8. Chester then wrote the SpiderGraph chart article. Much of the article sought to distinguish SG from radar charts – the distinction that the Examining Attorney wanted to see. For example, "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart, but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,...."[1] (Emphasis in original.) WP is not the proper place for such an article because it is WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. The article making such distinctions should be published where it can be reviewed by experts. After that is done, then WP can report on it. WP should not be the place of first publication.
The thrust of Chester’s argument is that SpiderGraphs are somehow different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources that make that statement. The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG. Chester's claim that SG don't have those limitations is unsourced. When Chester draws his own distinctions between the two, he points out trivial distinctions such as hand-drawn versus computer-drawn. The SG "is not constructed from a spreadsheet."[2] Radar charts can have up to 8 or 9 variables, but the SG can have up to 30. SG do not use "geometry".
I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. He has told us that a spider chart is a radar chart. He has told us a SpiderGraph chart is distinct from a radar chart. He has told us he trademarked SpiderGraph. What he has not told us is that SpiderGraphs, whatever they are and however distinct they are from radar/spider charts, are getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community.
Quite simply, Chester is following the instructions of the Examining Attorney. He is trying to publish a article on Wikipedia to inform the public that his SpiderGraph charts are different from radar charts so he can backup his trademark claim.
Glrx (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glrx's 4/9 "Comments by Nominator" (These are Responses by the Author)
Glrx Please Note: It is people like you that have required my long comments! Just to let you know, I should be getting my Taxes finished, but instead, I'm spending my time to help you clarify your misconceptions! Also, Please Note: I type with two fingers, looking down at the keyboard, so you can see that I'm not to crazy about typing! However, not being noticed by the public has nothing to do with the article's Notability! As to "preserve and promote his trademark" - My TM has already been reinstated! Now, as to my motives, Please Read response #4 to Dennis The Tiger, above!
Now I'll try to answer your concerns:
  • 1) I developed the SpiderGraph chart as a teaching aid and had no idea what a Radar chart was! It wasn't until a Reviewing Editor forced me to do more research on the Radar chart, that I discovered just what the Radar chart users thought about using it and that it had Geometry in the Excel software to help display the chart's patterns, that were then used to "estimate" the trade-off decision. That research proved to me that the SpiderGraph method was much more simple and even more accurate, because it didn't require software like the Radar charting method! (WP:MNA) Thus proving that the SG charting method was even more Notable, then the Radar chart! A fact that eluded me, when my descriptive article was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation in 1986, that can now be found in the Library of Congress! (WP:N)
In my opinion, Notability has nothing to do with publicity or public acclaim, it's the Method that really counts! The Reviewing Editors shouldn't rush to delete any article, because the public has an opportunity to vote their oppinion at the end of each article! There's also "edit tabs," so the article can be corrected! I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer!
  • 2, 3, & 4) It sounds to me like you don't know or care to know, just how Search Engines work! "It's the number of Hits, that keeps an article on the first page! Once it moves off the fisrt few pages, it's lost by attrition!"
  • 5) It sounds to me like you don't know the value of a Trademark! Notices were sent in 2008.
  • 6) (apparently for radar chart - "naming confusion") If you would have clicked on any reference in the "References of Radar chart Naming Confusion" section of the article, you would have noticed that the referenced companies had used a Radar spider chart and called it a SpiderGraph chart! In addition, I proved to the TM Attorney that all infringements took place after my initial TM date and a new TM Registration is in the process of being issued!
  • 7) Yes, I thought the suggestion was a good one and it may even cut down on the naming confusion! However, that was only my "initial" reason! You see, after I started writing the article and encountered a couple of your really friendly and helpful Reviewing Editors and many more of your rude, teasing, and possibly worthless Reviewing Editors (you already know some of their names), so being a very principled person of High Integrity, I decided that I would not be intimadated by them! Therefore, my real motivation, after being forced to realize that the Radar charting method was not very good, was further explained to Dennis The Tiger in response #4. (To avoid being more lengthy, you'll have to refer to my Dennis response #4.)
  • 8) The Examming Attorney was satisfied when I proved the infringement. However, the "but it has never been known by the term SpiderGraph,.... " was my idea! However, when it was pointed out to me that that didn't sound very Wikipedic and knowing that my article was intended to be an impartial comparison and that part sounded Advisorial, I agreed and removed it immediately! The part: "The Radar chart, sometimes called a Spider chart, is also known as a Web chart, Cobweb chart and Star chart" came from the 2nd paragraph of the Radar chart article itself, but I placed the spider chart name first because that was the name being confused. (WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS) are no longer true! The fact that the Radar chart article is published in Wikipedia and the SpiderGraph chart article will not be, if it's deleted, is not a very good example of Wikipedia's impartiality! In addition, the SpiderGraph chart article applies directly to the following Wikipedia Policy:
WP:NOT#DICT
2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.
Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
  • 9) The thrust of Chester’s argument (There is no "argument" found in the SG article, it's all impartial comparisons taken from reliable sources and cited!) is that SpiderGraphs are somehow (How can you say "somehow," when it's proven by examples, WP:MNA) different from radar charts, but there are no reliable sources (Don't your eyes or knowledge count, when it's obvious to the casual observer? WP:MNA) that make that statement. It seems to me that you're the only argumentative person here, of course making exception for the non-technical and those previously mentioned!
For example: Your comment - The six comments regarding limitations of the radar chart are about the radar chart and do not address or compare the SG.
The reason the impartial comparison doesn't address or compare the SG (with citations) is obvious, the SG chart can be constructed and compared by hand, w/o the need of a Spreadsheet or a computer, that uses Geometry in its software, which causes the limitations!!! (WP:MNA) The SG chart doesn't need those things and still provides more accuracy than the Radar chart, when making Trade-off Decisions! A fact that is definitely not trivial, nor of my own distinction! Sorry, but I guess, the only distinction here is between a BSEE and a PhD!
  • 10) I believe that Chester is wrong on most of the merits, but that does not matter here. (Unfortunately, it does matter here! You're either Technical or you're not!) (WP:MNA) Even if Chester is absolutely right about everything he says, he has not provided a significant number reliable secondary sources to support notability for this article. (Fortunately, Wikipedia, in all its wisdom, has provided WP:MNA, for situations just like this, that should be obvious to the causal observer!)(As far as reliable secondary sources supporting notability, I believe that my one (1) source, found in the Library of Congress, far out-weighs a significant number regular sources!)
As far as "getting significant use and have had a significant impact on the community." (I would have to say, that 45 companies using a Radar spider chart and calling it a SpiderGraph chart in error, would have a significant impact on any community!) Even Microsoft has been known to use a spider chart and call it a "Spider (SpiderGraph) chart." They were also sent an Infringement Notice, but didn't reply!
  • 11) Quite simply, I already have the Trademark Registration, so the Examining Attorney is out of the picture. It's up to me to decide who infringes and who does not, but I choose not to persue it, because hiring a Trademark Attorney for an infringement case is a very lengthy & costly process! However, you are right, the SpiderGraph chart article will clear-up alot of confusion and cut down on infringement of my Trademark, but unfortunately there's more to proving an infringement case and a Wkipedia article would not backup anything, but the impartial truth! However, I believe that it's more important to always keep the public informed about what the truth is!
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Chester 23:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gregory L. Chester 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs) Gregory L. Chester 01:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Gregory L. Chester 01:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong| speak _ 18:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN: Scottywong - Your Relisting Comment sounds highly opinionated!! If only you would have read this discussion, you would have noted the proof of Notabilty for this article per a WP policy example and that this Author has proven several times over that there was never a COI in the impartial comparisons used for this SpiderGraph chart article! In addition, you would have also learned that this Author doesn't like to type, but if the REs were more Technically Knowledgeable, there would have been no need for walls of text to help clarify their confusion! Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot. In my opinion, the assertion that this is different from Radar charts is somewhat plausible. From what I can see, it's actually a legitimate variation of Radar charts that may or may not (as the COI author claims) have predated them. That's fine. What I'm not seeing is enough of a difference to warrant a seperate article. I would propose three two things. First, create a section of the Radar charts article that includes the critical information about the differences, including that it is claimed that the SpiderGraph is the original form. Do not merge, however - this article is too POV to use anything in it except maybe its sources. Second, Delete this article with extreme prejudice. Third, (someone else do this) take the COI party in the above dispute to the appropriate arbitration and request a topic-ban for that editor. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that show the SpiderGraph is different from the radar chart. Chester has provided no references for that claim. When Chester describes the difference, the claimed distinctions are either wrong or trivial. Radar charts may use linear axes; they are not required to use square-root scaled axes. A well known problem with visual presentations is people perceive areas rather than lengths -- a well-known problem covered in the book How to Lie with Statistics. To minimize that problem, Excel apparently uses a square-root scaling (so the area of a sector attempts to be linearly related to its plot value). There's no indication that radar charts are limited to 8 or 9 axes; a radar chart can be a good chart for 24-hour cyclic data, so 24 axes are reasonable. Radar charts need not layer different candidates on the same chart; even the radar chart#Example does a side-by-side comparison rather than a layered comparison. Trying to layer more than a few candidates would strike any one as too busy. The distinctions are Chester's claims; they are not made in any cited reliable sources.
Chester does not claim to predate the radar chart. The radar chart first appeared in 1877. See Radar chart#Overview providing a sources for the statement, "The star plot was first used by Georg von Mayr in 1877." Chester claims that he developed the SpiderGraph while ignorant of the radar/spider chart. His claim is not about priority but rather that he made an independent invention.
Chester's legal claims lie in what name someone may use when referring to a radar graph. Chester owns a trademark, so no one is permitted to call their radar/spider/web/star/whatever chart a "SpiderGraph" without Chester's permission. He controls the name, but he does not control the usage charts with a similar appearance. Significantly, Chester does not have a patent on the process of displaying data on radial axes. A trademark is essentially a brand name: I can make a cola drink that tastes exactly like Coca-Cola (or Pepsi), but I cannot market it as Coca-Cola (or Pepsi). I can make a car, but I cannot call it a Chevrolet or a Buick. Chester can show infringement because nobody used the name "SpiderGraph" before he trademarked the term.
Glrx (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above, then, I'm revising my opinion by striking the first part. The second and third stand. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN: Jorgath - Regarding your comments & unwarranted negative conclusions in your very 1st paragraph of 44 words:
PLS. NOTE: All of the negative comments and assumptions from the previous Reviewing Editors mentioned above, have all been asked & answered at length and proven to be incorrect! But still, they persist! I guess, there are some Reviewing Editors that just don't like to be proven wrong! OR maybe they're just more into the "game" and not really trying to make Wikipedia better at all??
After reading your first paragraph comments: "I...wow. I just have no idea, but I'll give this a shot." I must assume that you are not Technical, nor Scientific either. Unfortunately, I believe a Reviewing Editor should encourage, not discourage, a neophyte writer, but it seems that most REs that I've dealt with in this discussion would rather delete something that they don't want to take the time to understand or maybe can't understand in the first place! However, after reading your unsubstantiated (Second) DELETE statement and your (Third) TOPIC-BAN statement, it is very clear to me, that you were selected to help build a negative consensus for my article's deletion! I guess it would be to much to hope for, that you would be a man of your word regarding the enhancement of WP, instead of just another misguided kid with the loyalty of a mobster hit man!
However, before I address your concerns, I would ask you to put on your "Enhancementist Hat" and impartially review a few things first: 1) Look at your Radar Chart#Overview link and read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the lower section on "Limitations." 2) Click the Link at Glrx's statement #8, citation #1. You will see "Not to be confused with a Radar chart," after reading that, scroll down till you see "Six (6) comments Regarding Limitations of a Radar chart" written by Radar chart users, that also found fault with the Radar charting method! (The Six (6) comments section was deleted by a non-technical RE and I believe it should be reinstated to prove that this article does have the required sources!) PLS NOTE: that the SpiderGraph chart has none of the Radar chart faults because no computer (that causes the faults) is needed to construct the SG chart! 3) Scroll up to the end of the Response to Glrx statement #8 and read the WP Notiablity Policy section WP:NOT#DICT, which describes the SG chart to a tee as being exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
Now to address your concerns in your 2nd paragraph: Your first (mostly crossed out) paragraph, started out sounding opened minded, but changes rather rapidly?? So, I'll move on to your 2nd paragraph: 1) There are "no sources needed" for the SG chart, except WP:MNA, because the Radar spider chart uses a spreadsheet for the Excel software, so a computer can construct a few diagrams or patterns, so the user can make an "estimated" decision, looking at the relationships between the diagrams. The more diagrams, the harder it is to make a decision! (It's the computer that requires the Geometry found in the software to help construct the diagrams, that creates the faults in the Radar charting method!) Fortunately, "the SG chart only requires a user" to directly construct the SG chart and "no spreadsheet nor computer are even needed!" But, of course you should have learned that from reading the SpiderGraph chart article, that is, if you did read it?? The whole SG chart article is written in an impartial comparison style to show the distinct differences between the to two types of charts. (to address your uninformed statement, "The impartial comparison distinctions are neither wrong nor trivial!!" (WP:MNA) It's very simple: The Radar spider chart method REQUIRES A COMPUTER to construct a chart, so the user can "estimate" a decision from its patterns! Where as, the SpiderGraph chart method DOES NOT REQUIRE A COMPUTER, the user constructs the chart "directly" and can "calculate" the value of each item's chart, to then later "select" a final decision!
Your 4th sentence in your 2nd paragraph, "Radar charts may use linear axes," confuses me! Because, if you read my 4th paragraph above, starting with "However," requesting that you review a few things first, 1) was asking you to read paragraphs 2 & 3 in the Radar chart "Limitations" section, where you should have read in paragraph #3, that "it's hard to visually compare lengths, because 'radial distances' are hard to judge!" Consequently, "Radar charts use 'Radial' axes, not linear axes, because they all start from a common point." To continue with your comments, "they are not required to use square-root scaled axes."?? I'm not sure what "square-root scaled axes" are, but I do know that square-roots are used to find the areas of the Radar chart patterns, not their lengths!
To continue with your 2nd paragraph assumptions: I'm a Degreed Engineer by schooling and always tell the truth as a matter of principle, consequently I have never needed to read the book to which you refer: "How to Lie with Statistics." However, in the next sentence, you include the words: "Excel apparently ...," which sounds very much like an assumption on your part! As for your other assumptions: when you refer to the Radar chart#Example, reading the very first paragraph of the Radar chart article, it states "... represented on axes starting from the same point." (To do this, the patterns must be layered to find relationships within the same chart!) Does the side-by-side comparision box you refer to, "start from the same point?" NO, it's displaying 16 separate car star plots to save space in the article! (Refer to the article's first image to see a 5 Design Star Plot from NASA, does it tell you anything?) Also in the Radar chart article, please refer to "Data set size" on the 4th page of the article, which reads: "Radar charts are helpful for small-to-moderate-sized multivariate data sets. After that, they tend to be overwhelming." I used 9 axes, because that's what that example used! In the Radar chart/Spider chart article found at "http://web2.concordia.ca/quality/tools/23radar.pdf", it states: "A radar chart can normally include five to ten categories." Good Luck with that!
In your 3rd paragraph, while restating some of the things already mentioned in my article, it seems to be somewhat correct, that is if you will agree that my article "impartially compares" two distinctly different and independent charting methods (you call inventions) to accomplish a Trade-off Decision, and has further proven that a decision made "from calculation" is far better than a decision made "from estimating data trends!" (WP:MNA)
Unfortunately, in your 4th paragraph, you still seem to be confused! Chester's legal claims "deal only with the word SpiderGraph" (that fact has been intentionally omitted from the article) and belongs to a special and totally different charting method and has nothing whatsoever to do with, or referring to, a radar "graph?", which BTW, heretofore has always been referred to as a Radar chart or Radar spider chart! The SpiderGraph charting method and the computer-driven Radar charting method are two totally different charting methods that arrive at a Trade-off Decision differently, "the SG chart by calculation" and "the Radar chart by estimation!" (I'm sure you can guess which one is more accurate!)
The 2nd sentence of your 4th paragraph, regarding "the Trademark and permission assumption" is totally in error!! I have the TM for the name of one charting method and will never give anyone permission to call the other (Radar) charting method by the wrong name! If you've forgotten, the whole "SpiderGraph chart article" was written to prove, by comparison, that the two charting methods (and names) are totally different from each other! (Didn't you even read the article??)
Your 3rd sentence is correct, Chester does not control the usage of other charts with a similar appearance, nor do I want to! Your 4th sentence is correct, but your choice of the word "Patent" is incorrect usage and has never been used in this article or its discussions before! (I believe that you patent an object and copyright a process.) The balance of your paragraph is correct, but has absolutely nothing to do with anything!
With the information and clarification that I've tried to give you, I would hope that you would re-read the article and see if things start to fall in place or maybe you can give me the insite to make the article easier to understand. You mentioned that your aim is to enhance WP and make it better, well with only one choice, the Radar chart estimation method presently to make Trade-off decisions, that users are very unhappy with; giving WP a second and more accurate choice, like the SG chart article, may just be the way to do that. I believe the public deserves the right to have a choice when wanting to make a Trade-off Decision! After all, what can it hurt!
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Chester
Gregory L. Chester 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete—After reading this whole wall of text I am convinced (despite GregLChest multiple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments) that this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia. GregLChest should take a second and realize that, as is stated in Wikipedia's notability policy, WP:N, Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. So far every argument for keeping the article has been to assert the fame, importance, or popularity of the subject. No reasonable argument has been made that the article subject actually does meet the notability requirements, specifically, the WP:GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN. Livitup - Regarding your SpiderGraph chart article Delete comments:
If you read the whole wall of text as you say, why didn't you see the following WP Notability Policy comment too:
WP:NOT#DICT
2. Dictionary entries. Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness. However, articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title. Articles about the cultural significance (is public "misrepresentation & confusion" of cultural significance?) or mathematical significance (is "estimation vs. calculation" to obtain a Trade-off Decision, a mathematical significance?) of individual numbers (45 companies exhibiting confusion in their own articles) are also acceptable.
Reading the above clarification, it seems that the SpiderGraph chart article is exactly the type of material Wikipedia is looking for!
Did you also read about WPs "only" Trade-off Decision-making method, the Radar chart article? If you did, then you would have noticed that the Radar chart has Limitations, noted on its pg. 2. This Discussion also mentions "Six (6) Comments" by Radar chart users about many more limitations (that was deleted by a non-technical Reviewing Editor, which I believe should be reinstated to give the article several additional creditable sources.)
All of these limitations are impartially compared in the SG chart, which has none of these limitations! This POSITIVE FACT alone, should be NOTIABLE enough to include the SG chart in the WP! PLUS, it would give the public TWO CHOICES to use for making Trade-off Decisions! (Showing WPs impartiality!)
As a less Notable Note, the SpiderGraph Chart was included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, found in the Library of Congress, which means they also found the article Notable!
However, to contradict your incorrect assumptions, the SpiderGraph chart, while having importance, was kept under wraps until 2003 and still then was not advertised, and therefore there has been no argument or assertion of fame, importance, or popularity of the subject! The only assertion that the SG chart article "proves" is that there is no computer needed to draw the chart, which causes the limitations in the Radar charting method, therefore it is more accurate because the user can calculate the Trade-off Decision directly and not have to estimate it like the Radar chart requires!
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory L. Chester 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice and calculated disregard for the extremely boring wall of text above. This whole thing is a soapbox for the promotion of this product/concept, whose notability has not been in any way demonstrated. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN.: AlexTiefling - Author's reply to your rather short Non-Notable comments!
Dear Alex, you and I do agree about two things, that is: 1) WP is no place for personal attacks w/o first reading the article & its discussions, and 2) extreme prejudice Vanity User Pages, like yours, puts you in the WikiTroll class and should be removed immediately! My Mother once told me, that if I didn't have anything nice to say, I shouldn't say anything at all! A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!
As for your comment about an extremely boring wall of text, I'm sorry if you're not interested in learning the demonstrated truth about a very Notable Article. I'm sure you found all of your college professors very boring too! Speaking about that, I'm really surprised that you didn't use your BSc Degree? in Mathematics to know that Excel uses Geometry to construct the chart, to the determent of the Radar charting method of making "estimated" Trade-off Decisions, compared to the SpiderGraph charting method that "requires no computer" to construct its chart, for a "calculated" decision!
Oh, BTW, this Author has no product to promote, as you assumed! Oh, yes, I'm sure you remember what they say about that assume word!
Your saying that, "notability has not been in any way demonstrated," only proves to me, that you didn't take the time to read the article or discussions, and that college didn't teach you to think for yourself! Blindly following someone, is no way to get ahead in today's world! Sorry, you haven't learn that either!
Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
  • Commment: Really: "A good lesson, your Mother should have taught you!" - that was rude! AlexTiefling expressed his reason to this discussion and his decision to "vote" for a delete, and you going against him like that? Moreover what has a userpage full of userboxes to do with being a troll? mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ATTN.: Colapeninsula - I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!
A WP:N/N two page reply paper was entered on 1/15/2012, look it up! also, throughtout this discussion can be found a WP:NOT#DICT Policy clarification, in which the SpiderGraph chart article "impartial comparison" passed with flying colors, please look that up too. A little homework never hurt anyone, you should have done yours!
While writing this article, I received a WP:NOR tag and when I did my following research, it only confirmed that the SpiderGraph non-computer charting method was better! However, I'm not going to write a wall of text this time, you'll have to do your own homework on this one too!
Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)
  • Commment: Huch? "[...]I believe that you're a "non-WP person" w/o a User page and therefore, your vote shouldn't count!" There is a) no policy on having a userpage and b) is that user "experienced" with over 3000 edits (not that edits show the experience, but they give a hint) mabdul 01:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge with radar chart. Putting aside the sidebar issues (WP:COI and the wall of text above), this is clearly a non-notable variant of radar charts, and one does not need to be a statistician to realize this. As far as I can tell, the claim to notability stems from a single article "Chester, G. L.: "Visual Aid For Selecting PLCs," Contr. Engr., Vol.32, Mo.1, 178-180, January 1985" and other references on the page aren't really about the subject: this is insufficient for notability. Additionally, it may be a different issue if the paper in question was famous/celebrated, but that appears not to be the case since, well, I can't seem to find it.-Well-rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As an aside, anyone knows what "Contr. Engr." stands for? Some of the databases I have access to list journals similar to that phrase, e.g. "Control Engineering", or "Control Engineering Practice", but I haven't been able to check them because those listings don't go as far back as 1985. Anyway, the state of the article is irrelevant to notability in this case. Also, man... we need better ways of dealing with walls of text. -Well-rested 05:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as already stated in my RfA (and cited above). mabdul 12:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, I'm surprised this was even relisted, as (after ignoring the tl;dr) the concensus looked pretty clear. Regardless, the article fails to make the case that this has any independent notability from radar charts; most of the references are not about SpiderGraphs (as opposed to being about radar charts) and the one exception, the supposed Chester 1985 paper, can't be verified to even exist and certainly does not appear to have been cited by anyone else. Additionally, the tone of the article is overly promotional, and the behavior at this AfD does not give me any confidence that it can be remedied easily. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to meet notability standards due to lack of extensive coverage in reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SpiderGraph_chart&oldid=489063497"