Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Griddlers Solver with Animator

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 Notability not established. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Griddlers Solver with Animator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - No notability is even attempted to be established. Page created as spam for a product frequently removed from nonograms article as spammer and continuously put back by owner of the website in question. Person who created this article also placed it back in the article against consensus and has no edit history other than doing so, clear sockpuppet of previous spammer, User:Jsimlo (not user name's similarity to name of website URL, and he has admitted it's his software he is promoting. DreamGuy 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the article, because I feel it is notable to the problem of solving Nonogram puzzles with computer. I am gathering and preparing data for my bachelor work. I am not an expert, but yet I have not found this kind of alogrithm anywhere else yet. Yes there is other software that tries to solve this puzzle, but they work a bit differently with different results. Also some are notable for their gains as well and I would want to write about one of them as well, after this is resolved.

I believe that the User:DreamGuy is twisting the policies here, pushing his POV and pushing his personal feelings because:

• He seems to have personal issues with User:Jsimlo (the author of the Griddlers Solver with Animator) all over the Nonograms history. My guess is that this is just another step in a longer crusade.
• He fails to recognize the importance of attempts to solve nonograms by a computer algorithm. Example: Talk:Nonogram#Links, AGAIN.
• He removes external links in good faith of removing spam, however, in this case he is trying to delete, what might not be a spam. I have been given an approval from User:Majorly, who apparently thinks this software might be worth of keeping.

Therefore, I believe that User:DreamGuy is pushing his own POV, which does not include any kind of algorithm for solving the Nonogram puzzles, even those that were mentioned by other people as well. And I believe he is pushing his own personal feeling towards User:Jsimlo, accusing me of being a sock puppet of him.

I claim to be no sockpuppet of User:Jsimlo, though my history is small and it started with writting about Jsimlo's software. Give it back 12:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Google hits for "Griddlers Solver with Animator" are merely directory entries, and there are no hits on Google News Archive or LexisNexis. The program may be innovative, but that doesn't count as a claim to notability in Wikipedia terms; the program needs to have been covered by independent secondary sources, and apparently hasn't been. EALacey 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about this [1]? Freeware Guide pages do not list poor software. Give it back 15:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only 20 Google hits, seemingly all from freeware directories or mirrors of this article, or from its creator's own site. No evidence of any coverage by reliable sources. -- The Anome 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not right since searching for "Griddlers Solver" only [2] gives much more hits than 20, a lot of them even in different languages. Give it back 18:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The shorter search term does produce some relevant extra results, but I can still only find directory entries and a small number of brief mentions on personal sites. Mentions like these are generally considered too trivial to indicate notability. Can you indicate any reliable sources that have discussed the program in more detail? For example, if it's been reviewed by a magazine or a website with editorial oversight, that could be used to show notability. EALacey 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have not searched all the returned links yet (doing this was never my intention in the first place, it just happened, sigh), but all I have found (searched the english only) was directories, blogs or forums. No magazines. Though, I have found Softpedia report here[3], they seem to review software. And directories report amount of download hits, thus the software has some base of its users. Looking at other articles in Category:Freeware, I think the Griddlers Solver keep up with a lot of them, doesn't it? I do not understand spanish or italian, but there are a lot of articles in these languages. Since the author does not speak any of these languages (according to his CV[4]) they must have been written by other people. Give it back 21:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think some information about using algorithms to solve nonograms would be useful, but I'm not sure an article dedicated to this one piece of software is the right way to go about it. There was a big discussion in the Telegraph letters pages back in 2003 about using programming as a solving mechanism. I tmay be worth either adding a section to the nonograms article or having a new article solving nonograms by computer or similar. Tim (Xevious) 09:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already entered into the main nonograms article. And there'saboslutely no justification for a whole new article about computer solving, as it's not any different from how people solve them (that's kind of the point, if the person can;t solve them thn it's no fun to play), and I'm sure our little dedicated spammer would just try to convert it into talking about his own software and ignoring all the other computer programs out there doing the same thing (and better, I might add). DreamGuy 13:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very small paragraph about nonograms in computer science in the main nonogram article. I think that this ought to be expanded and reworded at the very least. Also, please assume good faith when referrring to others' edits. Tim (Xevious) 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a significant section there already and is probably already more than it really needs to be. But this isn't the place to discuss what should go on other articles, it's to discuss the very unrepentant spammy article up for deletion. As far as assuming good faith, the person who created it is a very clear sockpuppet whose only edits have been spamming that site and harassing other editors/vandalizing user pages. He also admits to being a "friend" of the person whose site the article is spam for, which is immediate evidence of meatpuppeting. Assume good faith is for situations that are not clear abuse at work, and everything that editor has ever done is abuse of the system.DreamGuy 18:22, 18 May 2007 (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.