Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cantata++ (2nd nomination)

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 move back to draft space.. It has been suggested that some cautionary comments be added to Draft talk:Cantata++; I am not going to do so, but if anybody else feels it would be useful, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Cantata++[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since there seems to be a dispute as to notability, taking this into AfD. Since it was restored only a month or so after being deleted at the previous AfD, a new AfD is certainly warranted. Safiel (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Delete and salt. There is no dispute as to the notability of the product: it's clearly not notable. Since it failed the AfD only two months ago the following four references have been added.

[1] A mention of the product in a book. The discussion of the product in the book does not constitute significant coverage. It is only mentioned on p. 214 and in the linked table.
[2] Mentioned only in a comparison to similar products. It is mentioned four times, but is again not significant coverage.
[3] Only mentioned in the bibliographic notes section of the book. Again not significant coverage.
[4] Clearly not independent of the subject as it states that they are a "Partner to Meteonic" at the top of the page.

None of the references help the subject meet notability guidelines. SPAs spent one day (today) to improve the article. The editor who closed the last AfD, undeleted the article and moved it to draft space then moved it out without checking if the sources were valid. This is a joke. Why are we being forced to go through this again? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Anyone who nominates an article for deletion should be sure to walk through WP:BEFORE. Is there a similar set of steps for editors to walk through before moving drafts to main space? If not, there should be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

There are instructions at WP:AFCR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

~~Delete~~ alternatively strip right back to a stub since there is probably sufficient reference material to back that, though it is borderline. There is certainly insufficient to support the larger article. I've searched for further sources, hoping to find one and failing. I've corrected a failing reference, and flagged it so, which turns out to be a primary source. Cantata++ seems to be just another piece of software with no current notability. Salting is not required here, just deletion without prejudice to future re-creation when notability is established. Sometimes folk make mistakes. Gosh, everyone's human. It seems that accepting it at WP:AFC was premature. It happens. Get over it. There are no errors that are fatal and nothing the community cannot put right, as we are doing now. Fiddle Faddle 07:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Return to Draft:. I have reviewed the author's additional work. While it is not yet quite in the right direction it is much more appropriate to return the article to draft than to delete it. They are working actively in it and should not be penalised for an over-enthusioastic early acceptance from WP:AFC. We have the draft: namespace and that means we can give the author and article some much needed space and time. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Move without redirect to Draft:Cantata++ and salt Cantata++: coverage severely lacks depth. Apparently plain deletion is impractical here, as there are editors dedicated to improving this article, and they would probably bring it to the standards once reliable sources with significant coverage would be found. Until then let them work on improving this article in "Draft:" namespace. A warning for AfC reviewers should be left at Draft talk:Cantata++. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Move to draft agreeing with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, there is still scope for improvement, as this current version contains a fair bit of fluff and not enough quality references yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Delete Restored after seemingly no consensus. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Restore to Draft I was working again on the article and added some new references (case studies, technical briefs, a master thesis). It is still not perfect yet I know, but I'm working on it! I just need more time to edit some parts of the article. So please be a little patient because I really spent a lot of time writing and searching this article. And I also think it's going to get a good added value for users. QARon (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Move without redirect to draftspace. I one potential review here, but that's not enough for me to recommend keeping the article in mainspace. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Move to draft without redirect. I think it can be improved, not yet ready for mainspace. Jim Carter 09:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Comment The last time that happened the SPAs did very little work on the "article" and then requested it be moved back. The editor who moved it back did no due diligence and later removed the PROD. Since it was a disaster the last time it was moved to draft, I strongly oppose a move to draft space. There's no reason that the SPAs can't copy the text and keep it in their offices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

That's not a ground for opposing return to draft. It's something you need to take up with the reviewer who was overenthusiastic. IN general at WP:AFC the authors are single purpose accounts. Gosh, that;s because this is, generally, their first article. Every reviewer makes mistakes. LIfe happens. Fiddle Faddle 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

these SPAs are unusual since this wasn't a single-time editing, they're a long-term SPAs. I did take it up with the reviewer, but he hasn't responded. And while life may happen, this wasn't "life" it was a series of mistakes, and we have the opportunity of repeating those mistakes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

That is what WP:SALT is supposed to prevent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Comment First of all, thank you Lesser Cartographies (talk) for the reference. It may be useful for some prove of the article.

So, as you all see I'm still working on the article. I enlarged it a lot and it has definitely more value for users as you can see. I think the article also fulfills most of the Wiki criterions. And last but not least nothing is perfect at the first time... I promise to work on it! So come on, give me a second chance ! Regards, QARon (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC) .[]

QARon, just to be clear, I did a moderately nontrivial search for sources and wasn't able to come up with enough to reassure myself that the topic is notable. I assume you're an expert in this area and, given enough additional time in draftspace, you'll be able to track down a couple more really solid sources. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Yeah, sure that's why I wrote "it MAY be useful" ;-). But nevertheless I'm hoping to get a little more time to improve everything. Even God didn't create the world in one day...he had 7 days :-) :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QARon (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[]

You are not God. You're not even a god. And you've had months so stop whining. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Walter Görlitz (talk), you are always telling me to obey and meet the Wiki Guidance. I always try to do so! But at this time I'm really asking myself if you do "obey" to them? I even didn't compare myself with GOD. So please, would you stop your sarcastic comments about me or my article, just stay neutral... Because at this time it's really going to be ridiculous and it seems like that it is your personal interest to stop me on writing on the article. I always thought Wikipedia is such an objective encyclopedia and nothing personal. I never attacked you in any way, so please stay calm and behave yourself professional. Thank you. QARon (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

@Walter Görlitz: Whatever your personal feelings you must keep them to yourself. I am torn between WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for that unpleasant remark. AfD is not the place for this. INdeed there is no place for this. Fiddle Faddle 21:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[]

I don't care what you think or how you choose to "warn" me about this, the previous editor made the comparison and it's ridiculous at best and offensive at worst. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[]

@Walter Gorlitz: This might sound patronizing, but you're claiming that the comment is "ridiculous at best and offensive at worst". First of all, it IS a ridiculous comparison, that's the point of that method. You use a hyperbolic statement, such as "Rome wasn't built in a day" or "God took 7 days to build the entire Earth", and say essentially, that you are a lot less powerful than the people who created this grand things, and what you're trying to do is also less grand, so you shouldn't be penalized as you haven't gotten your objective done yet. You're picking apart minor flaws in his argument to avoid the actual content of his argument. His argument, is that he is making a draft article. The article was approved into mainspace, yet the article wasn't ready. Don't tell him that "you've had months so stop whining". That goes against the consensus on AfC, which is that if a submission is being actively improved, not to delete it. The submission has to be inactive for 6 months for it to be marked for deletion by the inactivity guideline. If you're going to say that this user's lighthearted comment about how long it is taking to make the article somehow offended you, as WP:UNCIVIL, then don't make uncivil comments in your retort. Don't get worked up over all the minor details. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[]

You're putting words into my mouth. I suggest you stop.

You're also ignoring my argument. Feel free to re-state it to show you understand why I believe that this article should not be moved to draft space.

Regardless, the article is on my watch list and if it comes back and doesn't meet notability guidelines, I will jump on that article too. The creator of that article has no excuse for not understanding notability criteria since the article has been through to AfDs and both indicated what was missing.

Finally, to indicate that the editor had (has) limited time is not at all true. The article sat in draft for over a month. An AfD has no time limit. It could be over in a day or a month. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[]

The creator of the article has 53 freakin' edits, Walter. If he did understand notability I'd take that as evidence of his godhood. Feel free to jump on the article as much as you like, but lay off the personal remarks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[]

Delete as above Userfy if requested. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[]

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.