Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 23

23 May 2008

Talk:The weather in London

Talk:The weather in London (edit | [[Talk:Talk:The weather in London|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deletion cited WP:CSD criterion G8. This page has been previously discussed at an XfD discussion where the decision was "keep". As such, it is no longer eligible for speedy-deletion and must be nominated to MfD. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Undelete. As far as I can see nobody has made any claim that this was a valid speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Nobody besides the nominator supported deletion at the MFD. Really not a close call here. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd also suggest that MZMcBride to limit himself to wheel warring on one issue per day for the time being. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ZuluPad

ZuluPad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Note: if you want to skip the history of this article, please see the "Establishing Notability" section below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omeomi (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I make the argument here that ZuluPad is at least notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_wiki , and as such deserves to be listed on that page. I also make the case that since the original ZuluPad page was deleted on February 27, 2006, it has come to be a popular and noteworthy program, deserving of its own Wikipedia page. I have asked for a deletion review because "new information has come to light since a deletion", and while a new page could be created, user User:VanTucky will not allow the page to be recreated, ostensibly because of the original deletion decision of 2/27/06.

I will establish ZuluPad's notability in a bit, but first, some history: I added ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki (originally "Desktop Wiki", but the two pages were merged, and hereafter I will refer to both as "Personal Wiki") page in early 2006, and I created a ZuluPad page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZuluPad . The initial ZuluPad page was deleted because the application was deemed to be non-notable. Granted, it had been released just weeks before, so it was probably non-notable at the time. I exercised my right to challenge the deletion on Wikipedia here, but lost. I respected the community decision at that time to delete the ZuluPad page, and leave it listed on the Personal Wiki page. I did not try to recreate the page.

However, ZuluPad has been listed continuously on the Personal Wiki page since February 2006 until being deleted--along with a number of other Personal Wiki applications--by User:Thumperward on May 17, 2008 with this note: "(rm inappropriate external links; please add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles. move all screenies to the top for now)". By this point, ZuluPad did have its own page, created by a ZuluPad user (with whom I have no association) around September 2006. This ZuluPad user mentioned his desire to have a Wikipedia page on the ZuluPad forum here.

Anyway, since ZuluPad did have its own page at this point, I followed Thumperward's suggestion to "add back examples when they are notable enough for their own articles". ZuluPad had its own article at this point, so I added it back. It seems worthwhile to note that this direction to only list applications with their own Wikipedia pages comes solely from Thumperward, and is not the result of any community consensus or existing Wikipedia policy. It also conflicts with the community decision to delete the ZuluPad page and "Merge into Desktop Wiki (which could have some external links) until it gains some notability of its own." -rodii. Somewhat interestingly, this decision to remove Personal Wiki applications en masse also removed VoodooPad, which according to the Personal Wiki Discussion page, is the inventor of the genre. It should also most certainly be listed here.

I attempted to re-add ZuluPad to the Personal Wiki page, but another user, VanTucky decided to delete the existing ZuluPad page, and remove references to ZuluPad from the Personal Wiki page each time I added them, claiming it shouldn't be listed because it didn't have its own Wikipedia page. I find the circular logic used here astounding. The person who deleted the page shouldn't be able to make the argument that Wikipedia should be purged of references to ZuluPad solely because it doesn't have its own page, and a decision to delete a page shouldn't preclude that page from being recreated at a later date, which is what VanTucky is arguing. I ask here for a reversal of the original deletion decision, so VanTucky will stop deleting all references to ZuluPad from Wikipedia.

Establishing Notability

Why is ZuluPad at least as notable as any of the other Personal Wiki applications listed on the "Personal Wiki" page? A Google search for "ZuluPad" will net you 23,400 results, some of which are the following:

Digg.com
ZuluPad appeared on the front page of Web heavyweight Digg.com, garnering 1,481 diggs:
http://digg.com/software/Personal_Wiki_Application_As_Easy_As_Notepad_It_is_FREE

Lifehacker.com
ZuluPad was "Download of the Day" on Lifehacker.com, garnering comments that found it simpler to use than Wikidpad, which is listed on the Personal Wiki page.
http://lifehacker.com/software/wiki/download-of-the-day--zulupad-190656.php

Northjersey.com
ZuluPad was reviewed by Peter Grad, a computer columnist for The Record, a daily newspaper serving New Jersey. Unfortunately, with this being a print publication, a link to this article is no longer available, but Wikipedia policy is that references don't need to be immediately verifiable, as long as references can be varified by a trip to a library or a letter to the newspaper, which should be the case here.

FreewareWiki.com - ZuluPad Review and Author Interview
"The program is very small, fast, and easy to use."
http://freewarewiki.com/ZuluPad

Donationcoder.com Mini-Review
"Nice workflow once you get used to the program"
http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/bb/index.php?topic=8599.msg63081

Gizmo's Tech Support Alert - Best Free Outliner
"Its strong card is the ease with which you can create a set of linked and cross linked documents."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/dr/best-free-outliner.htm

BestFreeApps.com - Review
"In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s near perfect for my needs."
http://www.bestfreeapps.com/productivity/zulupad/

DownloadSquad.com
"ZuluPad delivers what you might expect - a very small and quick notepad with wiki functionality."
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2006/08/02/zulupad-personal-wiki-notepad/

TechSupportAlert.com - Freebie of the Month
"ZuluPad is the most usable implementation I've yet seen for Windows."
http://www.techsupportalert.com/issues/issue146.htm

IHateSheep.co.uk
"I’ve been using Zulupad for a couple of weeks now, and it’s quickly become indispensable."
http://www.ihatesheep.co.uk/articles/tag/zulupad

Anyway, I hope I've made my case. At the very least, I strongly believe that ZuluPad should appear on the Personal Wiki page, even if User:VanTucky disagrees, but I feel that it should also have its own page here on Wikipedia. Omeomi (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

---

From Jimmy Lee Shreeve (Aka Doktor Snake)

I have top-selling books out in the UK and US, and I write for national newspapers and magazines. I use ZuluPad and have from its early days. It's a useful piece of software. Different and very handy for any writer or researcher.

One thing is for sure, it needs to be listed on Wikipedia so others can easily find it. Much of the software you find on the web leaves a lot to be desired, even when it is costly. ZuluPad really is different and it's got to be part of any author or writer's software "armory"!

Anyway, the program gets the thumbs up from me...the world's most famous voodoo doctor ;-)

Jimmy Lee Shreeve (aka Doktor Snake) http://www.doktorsnake.com | http://www.jimmyleeshreeve.com

---

><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>

• bernard from RunningWithBulls.com

Hi there. I am a telecoms engineer working for a well known telecoms vendor. I am inundated with information, tips, tricks, little bits of information that I have to remember to a) make my life easier, b) keep people happy, c) do my job effectively.

Since 99% of this information is proprietary, and therefore cannot be shared online, or posted to the Internet public (it says so in my contract), I had to look for somewhere to store these sources of information.

I spent 3 weeks looking for:

• an application, an installable, easily movable wiki application for my computer.

• an application that allowed me to link to other pieces of information, in the public Internet.

• an application that would allow me to share the information via a web browser with my collegues, inside our company firewall.

Since I found ZuluPad I have used it probably 3-4 hours of my working day, and another 1-2 hours at home every day.

Every time I need to remember how to do a certain task, I look at the ZuluPad wiki index page and navigate to the link I want.

I have used it for taking notes, in the middle of a training course, while every one else write on a sheet of paper.

I get notes created in seconds, instead of minutes.

And since it is an easy markup language, I can export it out to HTML, and put the files in my webserver folder on my laptop for other collegues to use.

The definition of a wiki, from this very site states:

A wiki is a collection of web pages designed to enable anyone who accesses it to contribute or modify content, using a simplified markup language.

This is exactly what ZuluPad is.

Stop the nonsense and put the ZuluPad page back.

If you think this is some sockpuppet speaking, please e-mail me: bATrunningwithbullsDOTcom and I will happily telephone you and explain the other ways I use ZuluPad Wiki at home.

Its a pity more software isn't as easy and as cheap.

• Koonaone

I found it disturbing to send the longstanding ZuluPad page link to an associate and have her report back to me that it's defunct. On investigating the matter I find myself here on this page and beyond being disturbed, I'm now perturbed, and confused as well. I'm not about to spend much of my valuable time learning the semiotics of wikipedias word usage but it appears that notability is a salient and recurring focus. Something that's notable is worthy of notice. something that's worthy of notice is ipso facto notable. I assure you all that zuluPad is worthy of notice.

In my work I am faced with the daunting job of describing prognosticatively a system that is several orders of magnitude more complex than all of the works of mankind combined, that is intellectualy incomprehensible without a set of strong hierarchical classification tools, and that works in such a totaly successfully integrated fashion that it is clearly Required that we understand it ASAP. In contrast is my clear conviction that all things in ecosystems actually are interconnected to one extent or another, and that the very tools of analysis we use to view the systemic scale of nature, work against a true human apprehension of the nature of Nature. ZuluPad has proven to be a trusted tool in this never ending chore.

ZuluPad is one of the only true Brains in my data stream that works in this regard in that ALL inputs to the project wherever they are from, and whatever scale of significance they may have, are easily and creatively entered, and just as creatively assembled again in new ways. My own brain is allowed to do its processing work in its moment without the constraints of hierarchy and with full confidence that the data is not being lost in obscurity. Exploring the true complexity of the linkages between objects isn't marred by any necessity to maintain fiats of order external to my own vision of the day, yet the program faithfully returns my input and allows the vision of a future day to add, ammend, or even delete yesterdays vision. Just like a brain. I consider that to be worthy of notice in the modern arena of pondorous, constrained and generally business oriented applications.

It is true that the perceptual slant of a programmer, shows through in their software creations sometimes I believe, and there is an accent or dialectic in ZuluPad that is subtle and perhaps could be missed in a cursory examination, perhaps this is what's happening in this unfortunate case.

I have spent more effort here than intended, all I can hope is that the ZuluPad page be put back where it belongs. Thanks kindly Koonaone (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC) ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>¸.·´¯`·...¸.·´¯`·><((((º>><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º>Koonaone (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• As a user of both Wikipedia and someone who wished to know more about ZuluPad after reading about it on Lifehacker, I would deem ZuluPad to be notable.

Everyunitone (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• this is just admin, muscle flex wankery, the dude needs to get off his hitler tip and use his brain. It's notable, include it, end of story. 143.117.78.169 (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Too much to read here, lots of opinion and thought. Please delete most of it so only the reliable sources and your points are presented, I don't want a history lesson about the article itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• You can see clearly at the end a listing of sources that substantiate the claim that ZuluPad is notable. If you want to skip the history, just take a look at that list. --Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close as outside the scope of this process. If you can manage to get a few lines into the wall of text above, you'll see that the editors are asking for content to be readded to an existing article (e.g., a content dispute), which is not what Deletion review is for (it's for review of deletions). If ZuluPad is indeed worth including in the article Personal Wiki, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page, hopefully in a much shorter form. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• An administrator is refusing to allow it to be re-added to Personal Wiki unless it has it's own page (ZuluPad). That is why I am asking here to allow ZuluPad to be re-created. DGG has it right below.--Omeomi (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Permit re-creation He recognises that inclusion of computer programs on a list depends on articles, so he wants to be able to reconstitute the article--and include it on the list as well. The inclusion goes with the article, so the basic dispute is in fact over the article. The last sentence of the request makes it clear enough. I see the evidence presented as quite sufficient to permit re-creation. The AfD was 2 years ago. DGG (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• There is no evidence that can be used to verify such an article if it were recreated. Do you want to attempt to cite an article with no reliable sources to be found? Because I sure don't, and recreating an article for which there is no reasonable possibility of verification violates our core policies. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification, DGG.--Omeomi (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Allow recreation per DGG above. I've seen enough here to convince me that an article can be written on the subject. As far as the dispute about Personal wiki, I suggest you look into some dispute resolution with Vantucky, since content disputes are not what DRV does. I have no opinion on the content dispute. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do not allow There is no source material on ZuluPad that meets our definition of reliability. Digg hits and review sites without editorial structure and professional fact checking cannot be used to verify an article. If an article cannot be verified in any way, then we simply cannot have an article on it. VanTucky 18:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• User:VanTucky has shown a consistent unwillingness or inability to actually check any sources prior to voicing an opinion, and frequently overstates Wikipedia policy. The Record--listed as a source above under Northjersey.com--is a print newspaper serving the New Jersey area. The editor of The Record (Frank Scandale) is shown on this page: The Record (Bergen County). As a professional publication, one could assume that The Record has at least as good an editorial structure as any other print newspaper. Additionally, the very popular Lifehacker has an editorial staff, listed on the Lifehacker Wikipedia page. What's more, the reliability page mentions nothing about a requirement for a source to have an editorial staff, so the online sources should be considered just as much as any other source. I'm left wondering if User:VanTucky has some ulterior motive in this assault on ZuluPad. Why haven't any of the other applications listed on Personal Wiki been forced to provide sources in this manner? --Omeomi (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Lifehacker does not meet our reliable source criteria, and neither does a news article for which there is no evidence at all. Please provide a link viewable by all for the article, or stop mentioning it; we can't use an article that isn't available as a source. As for your comments on "ulterior motive", they blatantly violate our behavioral guideline on assuming good faith, and you need to stop that vein of discussion. I'm here to improve Wikipedia, in this case by preventing the creation of an article that clearly fails our requirements for inclusion and fact checking. That's my motive. I haven't taken a look at the other applications on the personal wiki article, but that is irrelevant to this debate. Noting that other stuff exists is not an excuse for allowing another policy violation to continue. VanTucky 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • You've provided no evidence that Lifehacker does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. And as for the print article, here is what Wikipedia has to say about your demand for a link: "It is not necessary that the source be findable instantly by any reader, merely that it be demonstrably findable (for instance, by library or archive request)." --Omeomi (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That is exactly what I am suggesting: the article is not demonstrably findable. You've provided no title, date it appeared, or any other specifics beyond author and paper name that are normally expected to be provided for news sources if they are to be treated as sources. Besides, one decent newspaper article does not necesarily meet our requirements for notability. VanTucky 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I no longer have the article myself, but it was published in November or December of 2007, and was written by columnist Peter Grad in his "Personal Technology" column. I assume there are many libraries in New Jersey that archive this newspaper, and the newspaper could certainly be contacted for back issues. It may not be the best way to cite a source, but it narrows it down enough that it is certainly "demonstrably findable". --Omeomi (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)