Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:10, 26 May 2010

Archives

Archive 1: 2004 – September 2006 Archive 2: September 2006 – November 2009 Archive 2: November 2009 – May 2010

BugNET nomination for deletion?

Hi Haakon, I am not sure what is wrong with my newly added page for BugNET. You suggest BugNET has no information except for a URL that leads to a blog which also has no information. I provided the link: http://bugnetproject.com/ which goes to the homepage for the free software product. That page links to FAQ, Documentation, Features, Download, Forum which explains the product in detail. A google search will show it is a legitimate FOSS offering with plenty of history and every reason to appear in wiki. The main reason I added the page is because I added BugNET to this comparison page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems Since that table had no valid link, I quickly added a page. I am not the creator of the product so I posted in the products forum requesting that the creator or other more knowledgable person could edit the page to finish it and fix any mistakes I made. So even if there is legitimate reason to delete the page, it should atleast sit there for a little while to allow enthusiasts to complete the entry. I have just started using the product and it is quite good, but I did not find it quickly becuase there was no wiki entry, hence my actions. Please comment to let me know what you make of the whole deal. GregDude (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Please see what's written in the AfD itself. I did not say that the article has no information, but that it does not have sources indicating significant coverage in reliable third-party publications, which is a requirement. Haakon (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. However I think you should agree that the changes and additions I have made during today now exceed the requirement for significant coverage in reliable third-party publications If not, please explain further. By the way, the product developers are now aware of the page and have begun contributing to it. GregDude (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are rarely counted as reliable sources.

Anyway, I am just one person; the point of the AfD process is to gather consensus. As such, it would be more useful if you could argue your points on the AfD page instead of here. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

pixetell article for your review

Hello Haakon:

My name is Dan Cook. I'm contacting you because you've worked on the Pixetell article in the past. I work for the company that produces the software and have also worked on the article. I have been learning more about Misplaced Pages so that we may have a page there that is informative and objective. I have posted a proposed rewrite for the article in my user space which I believe is a general improvement over the article you commented on. I hope this version addresses the concerns in the tags at the top of the page. Please take a look if you have a moment. (See link at Talk:Pixetell.) -Dan Cook 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DDcook (talk • contribs)

CredAbility.Info page marked to be, and subsequently deleted

Hi Haakon. I am confused. None of the comments made about the page are technically incorrect, we do see it as an excellent medium to push traffic to our site, so it could be considered advertising. However I am at a loss as to how 50% of Misplaced Pages has not also been deleted. As a bi-product of our page being removed, we have also been removed from the page referenced Comparison_of_project_management_software and yet the other 75+ references on that page, all still have their Misplaced Pages pages present, even though one of them has been marked as "defunct".

Notability is difficult to establish, so we havent got a huge amount of press or 3rd party references, but so what. Our registered users in Mexico, Canada, the US, and across Denmark, Spain, the UK and Northern Ireland are all happy with their usage of our software. That the Misplaced Pages Editors have not heard of us, does not make it not Notable, and to delete one and leave the other 75 is unreasonable.

Comments were made when the page was first launched by several editors, these were dealt with through improvements to the page. Since then we have had a very stable few months and have not actively managed the pageas we were happy with its content and had nothing further to add.

Can you offer any suggestions on how the page can be improved in order to bring it back or request a deletion review ??

Craiggolby (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT)

There is only one option for requesting a deletion review, which is coincidentally also the only option for demonstrating notability: Point to instances of significant coverage in reliable, third-party publications. If these do not exist, then there is nothing that can and should be done. Haakon (talk) 06:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reference thanks, but two blocks further down, it states under the heading "Notability is not temporary" ... "a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."... We must have had adequate notability references when the article was first published as this was accepted at the time, this point indicates that the coverage does not need to be ongoing, so I am still at a loss. There will be more articles in the future, we are sure.

If one of my Clients was willing to provide an independant reference would this be adequate, and in what format should it be provided ? Craiggolby (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.165.10 (talk)

No, it doesn't work like that; articles aren't "accepted" at any time if nobody deletes them. Look at the comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/CredAbility.info. If you can find references (in reliable sources) that would have changed the outcome there, then you can bring it up for deletion review. Haakon (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BugNET deletion?

Hi Haakon, why on earth did you start and conclude the whole BugNET deletion? By your standards, every single entry in this table http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems should be deleted along with their individual pages. Exactly what personal problem do you have with the BugNET application or its authors? Since every single article in that table breaches the standard with which you judged the page I initiated, I'm looking forward to hearing your justification. I remind you that I am not affiliated with BugNET in any way. GregDude (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not "start and conclude" the deletion; the article was deleted by the consensus of our community, for the reasons stated there. It is not a value judgment on the application or its developers, but on the apparent lack of notability of the product. Other articles suffer from this same problem; hopefully they can be sorted through eventually. Haakon (talk) 08:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By 'start and conclude' I meant that you initiated the motion for deletion (start) and you deleted the comparison table entries (conclude). The final article met or exceeded the requirements of notability and it did so at least to the extent of the other items in the comparison table. I have repeatedly asked you to be specific as to exactly what requirements were in lacking and you have repeatedly just referenced the wiki guide. Surely you have some evidence to justify your actions. If wikipedia is not a place for a comparison list of software products and descriptions of each that is fine, but treat each one equally. The so called 'community' did not form a consensus. The discussion page was a farce of a few random people saying the page looked a bit like an advertisement or did not have a lot of merit for its existence. During its few days of existence hundreds of people visited the page and made use of the comparison table. I added the page in the first place because the product was so obviously lacking from the list despite independent reviews, years of development and hundreds of active users and supporters. I realize you posted your deletion request while I was in the middle of writing the article (hence the TODOs), not waiting until the full page was complete. You made no effort to voice support for my and other peoples efforts to resolve the initial inadequacies nor did you or any person in the discussion make a specific claim against the article.124.171.199.245 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion because, to the best of my ability, I could not find any significant coverage in reliable third-party publications. This is an absolute requirement for encyclopedia coverage in Misplaced Pages. I am aware that there exists other articles that do not comply with this, but personally I am just one single person and I don't have the capacity to go through the millions of articles on Misplaced Pages all on my own. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and is not internally consistent yet. If you think the closing administrator made the wrong decision, you can put it up for a deletion review. Haakon (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm accepting that you were only trying to do the right thing in your opinion. I will ask you 2 more questions. 1) Why were the links to 3rd party independent reviews/articles not considered 'significant coverage'? They were of course added later, but well within the controversy period. 2) Why did you remove the BugNET entries from the comparison table on http://en.wikipedia.org/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems ? I would like to restore it. If it is solely due to the fact that there is not linked article, well we both know why that is the case. Would you remove Bing from a list of search engines because it is not as popular as Google and not as old? (rhetorical question)124.171.199.245 (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

1) As far as I can remember, the coverage was not in reliable sources, and/or did not seem significant enough to change anyone's mind. 2) Products with articles are usually not listed in comparison tables, because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also see Misplaced Pages:Write the Article First. Haakon (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct that the list was not reliable enough. I have found 3 3rd party references but they are not exactly New York Times reputations. Rather than a immediate deletion motion, a orange tag requesting better references would have been preferred. I notice other similar articles carry such a tag, highlighting the fact so future authors can improve the article, which I believe is part of the point of wiki... collaborative improvement over time. GregDude (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for sounding angry before. I am new to wikipedia and thought that the content I was adding was being unfairly singled out.GregDude (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

EPiServer deletion

Hi Haakon!

You started the deletion process for the page EPiServer and also removed the entry from List_of_content_management_systems. I'm not sure what is needed to qualify as notable software on Misplaced Pages but in my opinion EPiServer CMS does. As an example an analyst CMS_Watch list it among the Mid-range platforms ] in their "The Web CMS Report 2010".

The community consensus on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EPiServer (2nd nomination) was that your product is not notable. For notability requirements, please see WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Blue Software

When I logged in this morning, it said 'This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it.' so I added relevant pages, was this not the right thing to do? please advise OceanBlue2010 (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you have a gigantic conflict of interest and should not be editing Misplaced Pages on topics relating to your company at all. Haakon (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

AccuRev deleted from Comparison of revision control systems

I was looking for info comparing VCS, and saw the conspicuous absence of AccuRev. The history showed you recently deleted it saying "Removing non-notables (as in products without their own Misplaced Pages articles))". I disagree that AccuRev is non-notable. It certainly does have its own Misplaced Pages article, and I thought it was a fairly well known commercial solution. We use it on my current project, and it's a great, mature tool. I would appreciate it if you put it back or provided better justification for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.253.26.10 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)