Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crammage

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. BJ^Talk 10:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crammage

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}}.

The article fails to demonstrate that this piece of flashcard software is notable. There are no sources other than a self-published one and a mention of the underlying methodology—but not the software itself—in a master's thesis.

Let me go ahead and nip this in the bud, because there have been accusations made in edit summaries at Crammage and a few other similar articles. I've got no connections to software publishing in general, much less to this or any of its sister/competitor products. Yes, they have articles on them. However, there's the doctrine of other stuff exists, whereby this discussion is only about this article, this product and its lack of independent coverage, and not about flashcard software in general. That said, the difference between this program and, say, Anki is that the latter has been covered in multiple other sources (Lifehacker being the one I've got first-hand experience with as a reader). I've done a Google search for reviews of Crammage and found none. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit histories of Anki and SuperMemo are a disaster. Based upon my long experience of what happens next, I hereby serve warning to all parties: If you do not cease edit warring right now, I or another administrator will protect the articles, most certainly on The Wrong Version. If you bring that edit warring here, I or another will prevent you from editing this AFD discussion, too. There is to be no edit warring, no attempts to stuff the non-existent ballot (This is a discussion, not a vote. I observe the existence of at least one pair of sockpuppet accounts already.), and no accusations of bad faith. Stick to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and how it applies to the article. One further point: Just because you might be here to promote a product, that does not mean that everyone else who disagrees with you is here to promote a competing product. Most of the editors involved in this conflict are good-faith editors, who are here to write an encyclopaedia, and not to promote any products at all. Those who are here at Wikipedia for promotional reasons are cautioned to assume good faith of everyone else, in this discussion and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Uncle G: I'm curious who the sockpuppets are -- Carl H and S. Marshall? Also, I'd love to know how you figure it out -- I thought IP addresses are hidden for accounts. Or do you have some editor/moderator status that allows you to see the IP addresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.82.5 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing to assert notability. It seems that the similarity between this product and others (the aforementioned Anki and Supermemo) may be the reasoning for inclusion, but whereas those articles ~~just about scrape in~~ are supported by good sources this one is not. I'm unable to find anything that specifically mentions this software that isn't a Wiki-mirror or similar... although that isn't helped by the fact that the word "crammage" has various other meanings too. As far as this discussion goes or may go; Uncle G's words are extremely wise and to be ignored at your peril. one brave monkey 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note; my userpage has just been vandalised twice by an IP connected to the above shenanigans. one brave monkey 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the comment about "scrape in" (just above) specious. So two products JUST make it over the bar, and anything else will be JUST under? As an alternative to keeping all, how about deleting the full articles, but creating a table in the SuperMemo article comparing SuperMemo, Anki, Mnemosyne, Crammage and any other product? An attempt at this was made earlier, I see in the history, but removed by the Anki crowd as there was a separate category. Then someone at Anki removed the Category so they could put back an Anki link in SuperMemo! How about a table with columns such as "Commercial/Free," "Open source," "exe/online," "Start year"? This would be truly constructive and minimize spin by product creators, yet provide very basic product info in a neutral manner.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghameel (talk • contribs) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Greghameel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete for lack of notability. Supermemo probably deserves an article as it has been around since the 1980s, the algorithm was a new idea that has been widely discussed, used and implemented. (Ideally it could be cleaned up). Anki has gained a following and enough people seem to believe that is enough for an article. I think it is a borderline case. Crammage is a new website and the sole purpose of an article would be to help it gain notability, not describe any existing importance. There are many other flashcard websites and programs, many have spaced repetition systems, including SM-2. This is not the place for articles promoting them. Carlh (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable website. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially promotional in nature.—The procedure here is that first the product becomes notable, and then it gets a Wikipedia article. You don't get to write a Wikipedia article in the hope of promoting the product. Incidentally, I've placed the __NOINDEX__ magic word on the article and used nowiki tags on the links. These edits should not be reverted unless the outcome of this discussion is "keep".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unable to verify notability. The edit warring et al is somewhat troubling also (per COIN incident), even if not a reason in itself to delete. -- samj _in ^out 00:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this simply is useful information to wiki readers. (Note that Crammage is not for profit, and so it's not a matter of commercial spam.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Homeboyfrisco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep (Sigh. Posted this in wrong thread, moving here.) I was asked to look at this discussion as I'm a long-time crammage user. I'm not a wiki editor, don't really know the rules, nor do I want to spend time reading up on a flame war.

- I've used crammage for over half a year. I read about SuperMemo (the algorithm) and wanted to try it out. A little research suggested that SuperMemo (the product) was a bit clunky, at least for new users. I found crammage (I think through wikipedia--I remember doing some reading here). I chose to use it as it was online and I could start using it right away. Since then, I used it almost every day (I'm obsessive), created several decks, one of which I made public for other users.

- Now that there's apparently a controversy here, I tried out both Anki and Mnemosyne (just installed and tested a few decks -- no long-term use). I've been wanting to do that for some time. They both seem like good products too. Some nice features like stats I like, but not enough for me to switch. I read one report of mnemosyne's local database getting corrupted, that would be the only worry.

- Again, I don't know strict wiki rules, but I can provide the perspective of a user. Searching for SuperMemo products (free ones in my case), I'm glad to get any info I can. I trust wiki editors to keep the info accurate and cut out any obvious "the perfect solution to your needs" crap; a brief look shows wiki info to be accurate for the three I tested. As a user, I don't consider product info spam as long as it has some accurate info (not hype) about the product. From my POV, I find info on all three useful.

- --Charlene

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlenemaxfield (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Charlenemaxfield (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. I like the concept of notability. However, I find the definition of notability rather vague, which I think is on purpose. If someone came fresh to this discussion, without a wounded ego, I think he would see little difference between the various products that currently have coverage here. Mnemosyne is notable for being an open-source project, Anki for having a decent following, Crammage for its user base and a being a tight online flash app, SuperMemo for being first! The discussion of whether a product is mentioned in an "article" versus a "blog" seems artificial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfenstein (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Peterfenstein (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, none of those are measures of notability in the Wikipedia sense. As for the distinction between blogs, newspapers, and magazines, that's well-established consensus as documented in WP:Reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I almost hate to point it out, but the three accounts that have made recommendations to keep have no contributions outside this area. In the case of Peterfenstein, his first edit (as a registered user) was to this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources writing about the product that I was able to find. There's just blogs and whatnot. The sole reference in the article that is about crammage is a blog that only mentions it. There's even a scarcity of unreliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the others are deleted too: Anki, for example, clearly does not pass the guidelines at Reliable sources which say, "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" which is not the case for any of the references... all of which, in addition, are blogs! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.27.202 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep them all. They are all notable. Live and let live. Peace. Build, don't destroy. Seriously, I'm not kidding. The tone here reminds me of Republicans and Democrats fighting to win, not make the world a better place. So much anger... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Thomasjnewsome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.