Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (software)
- 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 keep. Proto::► 09:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 (spam); this was contested on the talk page and the notion that the article should be treated in a manner similar to the recently considered MaxiVista appears valid. I am nominating as a neutral party to allay contention that might arise from a contested deletion under the speedy deletion process. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOT#IINFO Tonytypoon 01:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It meets WP:CORP (multiple instances of independent coverage) and the proposed WP:SOFTWARE (as WP:CORP, plus as a key product of a notable company). Note that I am the article creator and an employee of said company. I think that the deletion of MaxiVista was motivated as much by NPOV concerns raised by the removal of mentions of competitors by editors as by notability (which appeared to be established, though late in the deletion process). Wikipedia should probably have articles on both, since they both appear to meet inclusion criteria. I would most certainly have brought a speedy deletion up for review, as the article contains no promotional language, and mentions the closest free software equivalent, Synergy. GreenReaper 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It clearly violates WP:CORP "The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, club, organization, product, or service." and WP:COI "Don't write about yourself or about the things you've done or created." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merithb (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- You are misunderstanding WP:CORP - when it says "the published works", it means the works that are being used to establish notability. Nobody from Stardock wrote the material that is used as references within the article - just the article itself. The latter is only a problem because people closely involved with a topic are considered more likely to make contributions that result in non-neutral articles - hence the guideline against making such contributions. If it is a bad article, then it should get deleted whoever wrote it. Conversely, if it's not, it shouldn't. GreenReaper 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion may be strongly biased here. Additionally, if WP:CORP should not be enough, it additionally violates WP:COI. If the article about MaxiVista has been deleted for such reasons, this article would also need to be deleted.Merithb 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:COI suggests writing an article based upon reliable published sources. User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you suggests writing solely using published works from sources independent of onesself and one's company. GreenReaper states that xe has done exactly that, and the citations in the article's reference section appear to bear that out. Uncle G 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion may be strongly biased here. Additionally, if WP:CORP should not be enough, it additionally violates WP:COI. If the article about MaxiVista has been deleted for such reasons, this article would also need to be deleted.Merithb 14:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You are misunderstanding WP:CORP - when it says "the published works", it means the works that are being used to establish notability. Nobody from Stardock wrote the material that is used as references within the article - just the article itself. The latter is only a problem because people closely involved with a topic are considered more likely to make contributions that result in non-neutral articles - hence the guideline against making such contributions. If it is a bad article, then it should get deleted whoever wrote it. Conversely, if it's not, it shouldn't. GreenReaper 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the "References" section of the article, which cites two non-trivial published works from sources independent of the software's authors and vendors (and two others: one which isn't very substantial and one which is someone's web log), the PNC of both WP:CORP and WP:SOFTWARE is satisfied. I applaud GreenReaper for writing about a subject close to xyrself in the right way. Would that everyone did the same! Keep. Uncle G 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on non-trivial coverage by PC Magazine and eWeek. Although I would respectfully request that GreenReaper allow other, non-conflicted editors to directly edit the article from this point. You should, as WP:COI strongly encourages, "submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia." -- Satori Son 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am aware of the guideline and the arguments behind it, I respectfully decline to follow it, as I feel that it does more harm than good, particularly when it extends beyond the realm of people paid to edit Wikipedia. Instead, I try to ensure that my own contributions don't become further reasons for its existence, and work towards consensus with people who have differing views (through the regular means of talk page discussion and building on their own edits rather than reverting). I think stronger measures should be the exception, not the rule. GreenReaper 11:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the same measure should be applied for different products. If Maxivista has been deleted for less valid reasons (autor was not affiliated with the maker), then Multiplicity should not be treated differentMerithb 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not seen the MaxiVista article - I am not an administrator here, and do not have access to deleted revisions. However, reading through the deletion discussion, there seem to be several reasons proposed for its deletion, some of which ("promotional" phrasing, attempts to keep mentions of other products out of the article) may have only applied to that particular instance of the article, or to the actions of certain editors over a certain period. What I would suggest is that you create a copy of the article that you would like to be there at User:Merithb/MaxiVista, and then invite others to consider it at deletion review. If it is well-written, contains appropriate references to demonstrate the notability of the product, and if you can assure the community that the other problems highlighted in the initial deletion ("references to competing products, alternatives or even the general kvm page are frequently removed by company officials", and possibly sockpuppet issues) will no longer occur, then you have a strong chance of being be able to overturn the deletion at review. Taking it to review has already been suggested by Kchase at your talk page, and he offered some help in doing so. You don't have to create the copy of the article first, but doing so may improve your chances, as people will be far more likely to believe that a neutral article can be written if it already has been written. :-) GreenReaper 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the same measure should be applied for different products. If Maxivista has been deleted for less valid reasons (autor was not affiliated with the maker), then Multiplicity should not be treated differentMerithb 15:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I am aware of the guideline and the arguments behind it, I respectfully decline to follow it, as I feel that it does more harm than good, particularly when it extends beyond the realm of people paid to edit Wikipedia. Instead, I try to ensure that my own contributions don't become further reasons for its existence, and work towards consensus with people who have differing views (through the regular means of talk page discussion and building on their own edits rather than reverting). I think stronger measures should be the exception, not the rule. GreenReaper 11:02, 31 December 2006 (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.