Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audicom

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The result was withdrawn by nominator on my talk page. Why that was done on my talk page, and not here, I don't know. The article does need some clean-up. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audicom[edit]

Audicom is a software product advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedic article and violates WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM. Same WP:V and WP:PRODUCT issues to delete are found here as in Audicom (PC audio cards). What troubles me the most is the blatant spam on so many audio pages. This is just one diff example of the many I continue to find. Users on this discussion have called me "an edit warrior" "feuding editor", yet, they completely ignore the scope of these individuals' self promotion activities at Wikipedia. One quick look at OscarJuan and Sebastian Ledesma's contributions confirms it. To make things more difficult to understand, there is clear evidence of sock and meat puppet activity. Jrod2 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been around since November 2006 and is notable as being the first audio broadcasting system for the PC. I don't really see where the article reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Show me verified references to the fact that according to you "It's notable as being the first audio broadcasting system for the PC". There is nothing to support that claim. What is audicom? a company, a product or both? Jrod2 (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, Google didn't existed before 1998. The Wayback machine didn't register articles before 1996 (even from big sites like Microsoft [1], and it took longer to start archiving articles from other countries. The World Wide Web itself was created in 1991, but initially as scientific project. It was until mid 90's that becomes popular, and by that time 'popular' was: all the students in a campus use it, and some companies have sites (just for marketing purpuses and not for real business). This article describe a working system with audio compression YEARS before that the (in)famous 'distribution10' was available from the MPEG comitee. So this article has relevance.

I didn't make an article about the company (wich is near 40 years old in the broadcast market) because I considered that it can be considerd self promoting. But what the company did, it's a merit: a working compression system.
How many companies in the world create a compression system?
It's an offence that an small company from Argentina did it?.
I didn't make an article about other products (like digital audio processors, or digital consoles) that the company currently sells. So, it's not spam. The company name it's Solidyne. The system name was Audicom. That's clarifies the doubts for the user JRod2.

And by last, but not least, it's AUDICOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SLedesma (talk • contribs) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Sebastian Ledesma, we don't need to use only Google or Wayback to verify claims. We need PROOF by using the proper citations and references which your article has none. The fact that nothing is found on reputable and notable audio and science online magazines, except the same text borrowed from Wikipedia on blog sites, indicates a serious WP:V problem, but I also see violations of WP:SPAM by you, as some editors pointed out on the AfD at Audicom (PC audio cards) which is nothing but your company's product. Jrod2 (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Was mentioned in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society in 1993, according to hits on g-books and g-scholar. I can't get the volume number; someone who can access the journal would need to do that. There are quite a few g-hits (albeit spanish language) that would indicate some level of notability. Also, the nominator and the article creator appear to have a feud going, see the edit histories:[2] [3][4]. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: JeremyMcCracken, if you analyze my reverts, they are all related to Audicom or the www.Solidyne.com spam link or all the unverified claims by OscarJuan (confirmed sock puppeteer [5]) a/k/a Oscar Bonello d/b/a Solidyne.com and his meat puppet Sebastian Ledesma. Are you accusing me of bad faith edits against these individuals? If so, please do your homework. If my work to clean up spam and vandalism is not suitable to you, report me to WP:CVU at once. 00:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I was only giving the histories for an overview; I was really looking at edits like this:[6]. Unless I'm seeing something wrong, it appears that you were editing on this article before tagging it, and I count eight <ref>...</ref> pairs in the section you deleted. Additionally, you called it vandalism reversion in the edit summary (as opposed to problems with WP:RS, WP:OR, etc.) BTW, by "feud", I meant both ways. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Again JeremyMcCracken , Do your homework. The diff you are showing here is the rollback vandal by Twinkle, which is what TW does and you wouldn't know because you don't use it to do tedious tasks faster. I didn't "add" anything to the article, which means your assumption of some "feud" between me and the author is wrong. On the other hand, you appear to be forgetting WP:AGF and your recent delete of a justified and legitimate comment by me on your talk page, also reaffirms that point (see: diff Summary"(rm attack, don't contact me further)". Wikipedia is not a place to write your wrong conclusions. Jrod2 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OUTDENT I took it off of my talk page because the discussion is here. As WP:TWINKLE states, you take responsibility for what you click- if you labeled a non-vandal edit as vandalism, that's your doing, regardless of twinkle. A feud doesn't require you to add anything- it's a revert war. You still didn't address the removal of information that was full of citations- that's why I called it a feud, because I saw the reverts of cited material. Also, the edit summaries (example) that constantly referred to the other user as a confirmed sockpuppeteer and used of his real name made it sound like you two have a history. (Yes, I saw his sock, I'm not saying he's in the right.) There's no need to clog this AfD up by debating my links, so I'm not going to make any responses. I posted that for the information of others coming upon this AfD. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me those citations now and I will support Keep'. Oh, you can't verify them, right? Perhaps, you want to use that external link to "El Diario La Nacion" as WP:RS?. We all speak Spanish here, but we can't use this at WP, can we? You've already disrupted and clogged both AfDs with unnecessary comments. Next time, Please do your homework. Jrod2 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are books- they don't fail WP:V automatically because they're not online. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I translated the weblink from that last diff, which wasn't in this article but a different one, it is here: Google;Yahoo Based upon what it says, upgrade from weak keep to keep. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know the The AES Journal is a book. Anyway, regarding your first point, the reference fails because the text that was written supposedly at the Audio Engineering Society, is presumed to exist and their claims, edits and contributions are based on its presumed existence. Furthermore, according to WP:V "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.". Your second point, El Diario La Nacion, I doubt you can consider it a high-quality reliable source as it had also published similar material in Spanish without references or any verification. It's so easy in those third world countries to pay an editor to publish whatever you want. I certainly wouldn't trust the content and for sure, it's not a good enough reliable source for WP, either. What I've found out after investigating these non-verified edits this last week or so, it's that User:SLedesma and User:OscarJuan have been acting in concert to post information about themselves and their company www.Solidyne.com. Indeed one started doing this as early as November 2006. Their unverified research claims, company name and company products promotion, has been so extensive that the same claims and self promotion were found on at least 8 different audio pages. How they managed to elude detection is beyond me. But, nobody verified the information. This isn't just about deleting this article or the other one you are also opposing to delete. This is about stopping people that whether consciously or unconsciously, whether by lack of culture or ethics, have acted inappropriately and in effect, it all indicates that they came to WP to post information regardless of the lack of verifiable documentation and for their personal gain. Jrod2 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems to me that this AES Journal reference is from an advertising that appeared in this publication (there are mainly articles, but also some adverts within the AES Journal)--Gabriel Bouvigne (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Being the "first" something does not prove notability. What is needed is substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, which has not been shown for the subject of this article. Having an article which has been Wikipedia for a couple of years also does in no way establish notability. Seems rather promotional. Edison (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That nom/editor revert war sure looks like a revert war to me, and not rollback of vandalism. Protonk (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, check the diffs I didn't go to edit revert war, I had been doing some reverts yes. But no warring. You doing pretty good for an 8 day account, though. Jrod2 (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That hurts me, right here. I hope you won't tell me to do my homework next. My account is 8 days old, but does that give you the impression I was born yesterday? I see huge blocks of pretty reasonable text blanked or reverted by you in those diffs. Now I can assume good faith--and I do--but it is still reasonable to say that you probably didn't want to deal w/ changing the text and just reverted it. The text was replaced and you reverted it (or similar text like it). Call it whatever you want, but that looks like an edit war. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do your homework Protonk, focus on the issues at hand (Product or not? Verifiable or not?, Notable or not? Promotion or not?) and please stop clogging the discussion with irrelevant comments. I am tired of explaining myself to everyone new who didn't read the whole discussion because it's so long. Even if I did go to "edit war" as you say with these sock and meat puppets, which that's what they are whether you see it or not, the article should be kept at WP only for its own merit and also, careful attention should be paid at how it came about. . Jrod2 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article should be kept, but also that it should be heavily reworked to be considered acceptable (ie requires cleanup). It needs to be about what the system brought as improvements when it was released, and why it should be considered significant. It should not be a list of all the different versions or a list of everyone involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Bouvigne (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Hey Gabriel Bouvigne wasn't it you who asked me to look into OscarJuan's sock puppet IP?. (see: [7]). These are OscarJuan's contributions ([8])

I guess what I read about, "do not create articles, if you are associated with a website, or do not create articles about your friends" is out the window because these are guidelines not policy. You have no problem with an article about their software, but their hardware is not Ok, correct? Then, one should expect to have the other AudiCom, which is "a video analysis system for auditing commercial broadcasts" (see: [9]. This Audicom has better references than the Audicom, audio broadcast software. AUDICOM now reads more like a product, doesn't it? Last time I checked WP:PRODUCT "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". Another guideline on Notability says: "Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. All too often articles are the subject of bitter deletion debates where anybody on either side of the debate could have fixed the article with far less effort than was spent fighting about it. Deletion should be considered a last resort used for articles that cannot be developed to Wikipedia's standards." (see: [10]). My last point to make is, we shouldn't reward a team of editors whose obvious aim is to promote their company for their own personal gain. If their products were notable and verified by reliable sources, editors who heard about these products would have created this article, not the owner or the company associates. In this case, editors shouldn't vote to keep unless they are willing to work towards fixing this product article. Having a software screenshot and a picture of some generic audio cards published by an Argentinian paper is hardly any proof. Imagine how easy it is to make a hoax; by having Wikipedia publish an article, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not. Bottom line, if there isn't something written on a publication like "Mix Magazine", let's get rid of it and move on to do things that are worthier. Jrod2 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close I got up this morning, looked at the exchange above, and thought, What was I thinking? The nom has previously edit-warred on the article they nominated. If it were blatant advertising, why was it edited rather than nominated for deletion back then? AfD is not a fix for content disputes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* and canvassing: [11] [12]. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These TWO editors deleted the same unverified content I did (See: [13] [14] which was reverted by OscarJuan and which they didn't dispute , I think because they assumed that OscarJuan was a good faith and neutral editor (I don't know this for sure, that's the reason I invited them. See: [15] and [16]). Vote stacking also says "Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable.". I believe that asking only 2 editors who are familiar with the case to join in the discussion, should be hardly considered "canvassing". You on the other hand, have confirmed that you don't assume good faith on this discussion and I ask that your vote to be discounted from the final results, as you have some kind of a bias against me for doing crime fighting. Jrod2 (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't on both sides of the debate- they'd both been on your side against the other user, which you said in the messages. I wouldn't have a problem if there were people on both sides, as there hasn't been much participation here. It's not a vote BTW, it's a discussion, but as I said above, AfD is not how you fix an existing content dispute. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to say it for the last time Jeremy and hopefully you can get it. I contacted 2 people I thought could help explain what their views were on the matter. Their opinions could have been different today so there was no way to predict what they would say. You are a ridiculous debater for accusing me of "vote stacking" in order to weakened my position in this discussion and I am tired of all your bad faith comments and insinuations. BTW, I know an AfD is NOT a vote but a discussion, you are the one saying I am "vote stacking". Finally, I don't have a content dispute with these editors, I had been reverting for lack of verifiable citations which is policy. There is no content dispute in matters of verifiability (per WP:V) policy. unverified material is deleted, no questions asked. My AfD has nothing to do with any content disputes with them because I didn't make any contributions to the articles these editors were working on. Not that I won't in the future. You are being a problem in this discussion, disrupting it, clogging it and prompting me to write too much to my defense. The topic IS "should we delete this article" or WP:AfD, not is "Jrod2 guilty of doing something?". Furthermore, I've been in communications with the article's main editor and he has explained his motives and as I assume good faith, I am accepting his explanations so my opinion can be swayed. If I choose to help him with his contributions, that's my decision and none of your business too. Now, go on and do productive edits. Jrod2 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2008 (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.