Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post Revolution: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 13 September 2007

Post Revolution

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Article written by the creator of Post Revolution (see his userpage in es.wiki as proof) (WP:COI?). It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and thus is not notable. Chabacano 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. It hasn't been the subject of coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. --Paintman 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both users Paintman and Chabacano are from es.wiki triyng to delete every article i write to wikipedia, it´s a personal situation and don´t must to be transferred to any wikipedia article. Personal issues must be out, the PostRevolution is an open sourced, GPL´ed, non commercial software like many others CMS in Wikipedia, has sufficient coverage and even has entries in SecurityFocus as a software in development and used in many spanish weblogs --Fabiomb 15:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I arrived to your article in this wikipedia because it is common for WP:COI affairs to spread from one wikipedia to another, and I consider irresponsible to do maintenance in es.wikipedia and to look the other way in en.wikipedia. Please, avoid ad hominem arguments, and focus in whether Post Revolution is notable or not. Avoid also insults and WP:CANVASSING outside wikipedia. Chabacano 16:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you mention its entries in SecurityFocus... do you mean [1]? This is not a valid secondary source. Chabacano 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment citing rules is not a valid argument. You must to explain and there´s no actual point in your claim. My own weblog is not an issue (focus on article you say, you too please). --Fabiomb

Comment Your weblog became an issue here when you wrote a post making a call for "help" to your readers. I will quote and translate your words there: "el imbécil de "Chabacano", ese usuario de Wikipedia español que me persigue y me baneó sin mediación alguna, ahora quiere borrar mis artículos en wikipedia en inglés ¿alguien con ganas de ayudar por mi lado?" -> "The idiot of Chabacano, that user of the Spanish Wikipiedia that is chasing me and that banned me without mediation, now wants to delete my articles in Wikipedia in English ¿anybody wanting to help me? (plus a link to this page)". That produced some meatpuppets, as you can see below. And the point is well explained, but I will repeat it one more time: It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Chabacano 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First. The objective of wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Not the persecution of the witches of Salem.

Second. In this case exist reliable sources, for example all users of this CRM or some reviews of argentine magazines.--Gabotes This template must be substituted.

Comment: Users of a software are not sources. Where are those reviews by Argentinian magazines? this is not valid: Taringa is a Digg-like meta-blog. A post there is not a reliable (and probably nor independent) source. Chabacano 16:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is not the spanish wikipedia, here you can't use the samr arguments. Taringa style is not in discussion, but still is a correct soruce. there's an article of this software at secunia and security focus. only common software lands there. about 100+ users of his CMS are sufficient. if there's personal issues try to avoid them for this dicussion. sorry,im writing this with a treo , its hard, so im not logged in

comment: Can you provide links for the sources you are talking about? Is this the article os security focus? It is difficult vo verify your claims.

Chabacano: An example in a first search in google: Digital blog: Blogs, la ventana al mundo (it is not a review, but it refutes the saying by Chabacano)

Taringa is NOT a Digg-like meta-blog, to see the entrance in es.wikipedia… OPS was erased because only have 20,000 visits per day, is not relevant in es.wikipedia parameters, sorry. Gabotes 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right: The blog you are quoting does not make a review, and its depth of coverage of Post Revolution is minimal. I do not know what does it refute, but it is obviusly not the main flaw: "lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Chabacano

Comment Chabacano: i don´t think like you, Social Networks are valid sources, wikipedia is a Social Network and Taringa is not like Digg or Meneame, so, i don´t get your point. I think this is a pointless discussion, trasnferring a personal issue to an article discussion. I believe you can make this article grow, not delete it, it´s better for wikipedia. Can you help to improve the article? --Fabiomb

Comment: Your personal thoughts about Wikipedia are, like mines, totally irrelevant here. The point is if it does violate the rules of Wikipedia. Taringa is a social network where, as happens here, anybody can write a post, and consequently a post there is not a reliable source. Chabacano 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wrong, Taringa has it´s own rules to prevent casual user posts, you must to be aproved and has sufficient relevance on the site to write a post (more requirements than wikipedia!) so, it´s not a valid argument (for me, of course). Still the article has sufficient reasons to exist, and you can improve it. --Fabiomb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomb (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then do you think that this post with 584 lectures until now at Taringa, a general purpose social community, is a reliable source??? (Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.) I'm amazed.Chabacano —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chabacano (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chabacano: who or what gives you enough credentials to determine what is valid content or not? what are you searching for? personal glory?. Please do not let your personal feelings for the user become your doom, or people are going to start looking at your articles and check if they have enough external references --Gmfnem —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmfnem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ::'''Comment''': When you mention its entries in SecurityFocus... do you mean [http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/466707]? This is not a valid [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Sources|secondary source]]. [[User:Chabacano|Chabacano]] 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 ::: '''Comment''' citing rules is not a valid argument. You must to explain and there´s no actual point in your claim. My own weblog is not an issue (focus on article you say, you too please). --[[User:Fabiomb|Fabiomb]]
+::::'''Comment''' Your weblog became an issue here when you wrote [http://fabio.com.ar/verpost.php?id_noticia=2301#comments a post] making a call for "help" to your readers. I will quote and translate your words there: "el imbécil de "Chabacano", ese usuario de Wikipedia español que me persigue y me baneó sin mediación alguna, ahora quiere borrar mis artículos en wikipedia en inglés ¿alguien con ganas de ayudar por mi lado?" -> "The idiot of Chabacano, that user of the Spanish Wikipiedia that is chasing me and that banned me without mediation, now wants to delete my articles in Wikipedia in English ¿anybody wanting to help me? (plus a link to this page)". That produced some [[WP:MEAT|meatpuppets]], as you can see below. And the point is well explained, but I will repeat it one more time: It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [[User:Chabacano|Chabacano]] 19:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' First. The objective of wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia. Not the persecution of the witches of Salem.
 :Second. In this case exist reliable sources, for example all users of this CRM or some reviews of argentine magazines.--[[User:Gabotes|Gabotes]]{{spa|Gabotes}}