Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver2

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, it's generally a bad idea to write about anything that you have any kind of self interest in. When this reaches the proper level of "notability," it will be recreated and should remain an article. However, as of right now, it has yet to reach that level. Yanksox 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bitweaver

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Previously deleted via AFD. It was recreated, and I deleted it as a repost. The deletion was appealed, and the author contested it, so I thought another round of AFD would be fair. Neutral vote for me. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dweller 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can not see how the article passes WP:V. Where are the Reputable, Independent, Third-Party sources (websites and personal blogs are not acceptable under wiki's policy for primary or secondary sources). I don't see how this passes any notablility. Last thing is if you repost an AfD, it is helpful if you also post a link to the old AfD. Since the old AfD was contested, please provide a link to that as well. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, original AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitweaver--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The result of the old AfD was "Delete". The article was recreated immediately and deleted again with a {db-repost}. If the result here is Delete once again, then the title should be protected to keep us from having to do this every couple weeks.--Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - it doesn't establish notability. A quick google suggests to me that it could do, but I'm not in the mood to do it, and if the author is keen enough on it to appeal the AFD, they should do it themselves. Yomangani^talk 16:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, As mentioned in the previous delete history, bitweaver is mentioned in an interview with RedHat and Lulu founder Bob Young in this newsforge interview - search for Tiki (was around the time the product was renamed). Bitweaver also powers high profile and high traffic sites including viop-info.org and viovio.com. We have also updated the contents of the Bitweaver article. We hope our google backlinks as well as our alexa ratings are enough to count as notable. Please let us know if this is adequate, thanks --Xingg 19:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Since Xingg works for the company, this is starting to look like vanity or self-promotion, especially with the wording of his/her last post. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: This article has been deleted twice in the past few weeks, and the current content still does not assert sufficient notability. Wikipedia:Notability (software) states that a software application is sufficiently notable if "The software has been verifiably the subject of non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer, such as a major media news piece, a book, a peer-reviewed scientific publication, or an article in a reputed technical magazine." (Although WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed guideline, the above requirement is essentially identical to the general requirements set forth in the Wikipedia:Notability essay and official policies such as WP:CORP and WP:WEB.) Note that the software must be the subject of the coverage, not just "mentioned in". When this software program achieves the required level of notability, I'm sure someone who is not an employee of the company will write an article about it.--Satori Son 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Commment It seems as though an extremely unfair standard is being applied to this page when there are MANY other similar pages listed on Comparison of content management systems. This project has significantly more notability than most of the projects listed on this page. Why is this inequity being applied to us, and not the much poorer and very incomplete pages for applications listed on that page? Almost none of those pages meet these standards listed above. Also, there is no corporation, it is a community based project involving hundreds of people, and many dozens of developers, just like the very mediawiki software you are using right now. This page is similar to all the others listed on that page, howver we have worked very hard to make it high quality with balanced information for those seeking information on Content Management Systems. For those following the edits, there were some, er, over-zealous, members of our community contributing information, and Xingg and I have done our best to temper their enthusiasm and present a high quality page to offer information alongside the dozens of similar pages. If someone with edits in the open-source and content management system realm, please speak up. --Spiderr 23:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• The 'here are some equally bad pages' argument doesn't cut the mustard. Quoting examples of other pages that fail to meet standards is only a good way to get them listed for deletion too. A few external links or references on the article to show that Bitweaver mets the notability guidelines would probably save the article. Yomangani^talk 23:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• What is wrong with [this link] or [this link] or [this link] or [this link]

Well, while the interview mention is OK, the others aren't the most compelling proof of notability I've ever seen, but my point was: they need to go in the article. I think WP:SOFTWARE may have a built-in bias against open source projects, but at least have go at establishing notability IN the article. Yomangani^talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'll have to admit, after looking at the Comparison of content management systems article I can really understand the fustration of Xingg and Spiderr. What a mess! That article has links to literally dozens of articles on software programs much less notable than this one. I'm not saying we should keep this Bitweaver article, but it does appear that the notability guidelines are not being uniformly enforced. Maybe after the WP:SOFTWARE guidelines are confirmed as official policy we can do some real house cleaning. --Satori Son 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The rules are being enforced whenever somebody has the time to enforce them. That this happens for one article sooner than for another does not constitute preferential treatment for the latter article. —xyzzy_n 01:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely true! I agree wholeheartedly with xyzzy's comment and I certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. I was simply observing that I understand why the creators of this article must be confused and frustrated. If anything, this AfD should motivate all of us to help clean up the numerous software articles that do not meet the standards. --Satori Son 02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't understand why it is acceptable for individuals with apparently little topic knowledge to make the decision to "house clean" and wipeout an entire topic area. The people who have been building that page, including a few measly edits by me over the years, have spent a lot of time sorting data and fending spam to get a decent, definitive list of information together. Those of us who write and use this software find this list extremely valuable. Should the entire body of CMS knowledge be wiped clean - even though a year ago it was fine? I really would like to see some insightful commentary by those with real knowledge of this topic area. CMS web applications hardly existed 5 years ago, and now are overly abundant - the are the genesis of wikipedia itself. I think the pillars should be adhered to - all biased information should be removed, and we should ignore all rules. Most of these applications are written by geeks in basements like me, not large corporations. For all the WP this and WP that, this body of knowledge is at the center of changing our species. Wikipedia should have a definitive guide to this, since it is what wikipedia is in itself. What I find abhorrent are people with clubs who come in and knock over blocks that other people have been collecting over the years and shove "policy" in people's face. I now feel compelled to go re-read Animal Farm. I know all have the best intentions and want to improve quality, however deleting knowledge is not the best means to acheive this, especially when those shouting "delete it" have no topic knowledge. I make a third request for someone with real knowledge of the CMS space to offer some insight. --Spiderr 05:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• The assumption that nobody involved in the debate (with the exception of the supporters) has any knowledge of CMS is slightly rash. Aside from that, it is acceptable for the continuing existence this article to be challenged by non-experts because WP has guidelines and policies which they can apply without expert knowledge of the subject. The coverage of the CMS subject area on WP will be considerably better if the non-notable products are removed: as you say, there are a lot of systems coded by geeks in basements, but that doesn't entitle every geek in a basement to the right to an article. If the article can't establish notability then it is correct to conclude it isn't notable, expertise in the subject not withstanding. Yomangani^talk 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Now I feel pretty stupid for sympathizing with Spiderr. I originally thought he was just frustrated about the appearance of spotty notability standards enforcement, but now I see his hostility springs from a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of what the Wikipedia project is. If only those people he mentions would have spent all that time and energy developing their own CMS directory website, instead of trying to hijack part of this one for their pet project. --Satori Son 14:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I may have spoken too early, there. Many of the editors on that page have been working hard to keep it spam free. I think they're just a little overwhelmed, and I apologize if I sounded harsh. --Satori Son 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Satori, I am sorry you are frustrated, and feel compelled to make such disparaging comments. In your 6 months of being here, I am skepitcal you have learned the true essence of wikipedia enough pass judgement on others. This kind of comment comes across as someone less interested in the usefulness of the information, and more interested is "rules and regulations and policies and debate", none of which help people like myself who greatly appreciate a source of information for something they use personally and professionally and helped build. I am sure there are areas about attorneys that I might not find useful, but I certainly don't feel it my place to go and judge the worthiness of the content, such as you do here. I would like to know why you think the vulnerability evaluations are insufficient. Your motives appear personal at this point, and thus your vote has devalued merit, in addition to your lack of knowledge about what qualifies as notability in this debate. I know you want to make wikipedia better, so instead of thumbing through pages and deleting accumulated knowledge, offering to make a *positive* contribution would be much more helpful. If I have misunderstood, I would appreciate clarification. --Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is very much not the place to accumulate knowledge. The purpose of the project is to document knowledge that is already accumulated elsewhere. If knowledge has been accumulating here that ought to have been accumulating elsewhere first, removing it serves Wikipedia's primary goal of being an encyclopedia (i.e., a tertiary information source). — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, Spiderr, you have misunderstood somewhat. I am not at all frustrated because I do not take lively AfD debates or their outcomes personally (even if they may result in some uncivil comments from time to time). But thank you for your apology and concern. No hard feelings. --Satori Son 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopedia, not a trade magazine. We have inclusion criteria that go beyond ‘CMS X falls roughly within our scope and the vendor will pay us per word.’ Expertise in the topic is occasionally useful, but definitely not a requirement to note an article’s failure to meet the criteria. (By the way, we’re talking about the article, not about the CMS.) —xyzzy_n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment (Trying to help) Are there any verifiable stats on how many users this software has? --Dweller 10:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - got fed up and edited it myself. I think the fact that it is notable enough to have been the subject of security alerts from well-known security advisors was the clincher (there's lots of them but I only referenced one, as I wasn't going to sort through them all to see which were unique). The involvement of Bob Young/Lulu could do with filling out though, as could information on the userbase as mentioned by Dweller. Yomangani^talk 12:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- Per reasoning of Satori Son. The guidelines do not appear to be applied consistently. Housecleaning may be in order but treat all equally. GBYork 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) per having read additional comments and reviewed article today. GBYork 11:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That is a mischaracterization of my opinion and reasoning. I stand by my Delete opinion. Several of the other articles mentioned above are also now in the process of being reviewed for the very first time. --Satori Son 13:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The entire body of currently verified content in the article is: ‘Bitweaver powers a large number of websites including high profile and high traffic sites such as viop-info.org and viovio.com, and is used extensively by Lulu. Interest in advancing the project has come from Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat. In March 2006 it was discovered to have an HTML injection vulnerability.’ Unquantified assertion of notability and no context. —xyzzy_n 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. There are no unsubstantiated claims, and much of the article is technical specifications and capabilities, which are enitrely verifiable and [verified]. Specification centric content is common for technical articles. Comments like this by people who apparently have little concern if this article exists are not are overly damaging and unjust. --Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• ‘Advanced’, ‘open source’, ‘feature rich code base’ etc. Everything must be cited, even specification-centric content. —xyzzy_n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Topic area knowledge appears crucial to this particular debate, and I have requested those with a vested interest to speak up. In both deletion debates, the hinging argument has been on notability, and both times, it has been mentioned that having multiple top tier application security site evaluations and notices about the software, as well as mention on Newsforge, a huge technical resource for software developers, was more than sufficient for it to have received enough notability. The two delete's from Santori and yzzy_n fail to address why that is insignificant notability. My consensus, based on their edits, is they have little to know first hand knowledge of what makes a "notable" web application. I have a vested interest, not only in this page, but all of the pages on list of content management systems. It is my desire for the community that BUILT that topic area to be the ones to determine it's future, not the self-appointed thought police who were never a part of building that knowledge. This whole thing feels spainfully orwellian. Yomangani did a fine job editing the pages to add more notability to address concerns--Spiderr 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• ‘To speak up […] about why these pages are useful’[1], to be precise. Regarding notability, it is the job of those who want the article kept to establish it; it is not the job of the others to prove there isn’t any. As for which community decides what happens to CMS articles, if you want to narrow it down, start your own CMS-oriented wiki. (Oh, and thanks for the ‘Orwellian’ label. It’s so original.) —xyzzy_n 22:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT Spiderr, to be honest, Wikipeida has rules, guidelines and standards that apply to all articles. It doesn't matter if an article has been here since wikipedia's inception or was just created a minute ago. The same rules apply. Regardless of what you 'believe', WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV need to apply to all articles. Those are rules you can't ignore.

Wikipedia's three content policies are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus

A few things to point out is We hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of published sources to enrich our articles, bearing in mind that specialists do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. (from WP:OR) So while you can call in 'specialists' their opinions hold no more weight than that of any other user nor does it mean that only 'specialists' may decide what is or is not notable or if an article passes all of Wikipedia's standards.

This AfD is not about censoring anything as you are hinting to with your Animal Farm refs. This is about determining whether or not the subject of the article is notable, verifiable, and meets all of wikipedia's policies for inclusion in an article of it's own. Suppose I had a friend who wrote a book about wikilawyering. He wouldn't be notable enough for an article of his own, nor would his book be. However, if there was an article on that book about various aspects of wikicommunities, it might have a factoid that reads "Newbies often use repeated, outlandish proposals, often failing to convince the established members of the community. For example, wwwolf wrote a book "Wikilawyer for Hire" (2008, O'Ridley & Patrons), where he states (pp. 42-43) that melodramatic polemic is 'the oldest trick ever in Wikipedia AfD debates' and won't win you any friends." See? Facts can exist even when they don't have articles of their own. Hence, comparing this AfD to censorship, or even book burning (if I recall Animal Farm correctly) is silly to say the least.

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original information nor is it a free webhost either, as stated in policy. If the history of the website in question is available here but not on the site in question (or some other website that has researched the background of the site), then that is backwards. Wikipedia articles are to cite multiple, Reputable/Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources who can present 'pre-chewed' pieces of information, and condense that information to something that tells the uninformed people with one glance on what this stuff is about. This article fails on all counts --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The problem with the Newsource article interview is it is not focused on Bitweaver only. That makes it a 'trivial-source' per the stated Policies (read them if you disbelieve me). We do not have Multiple, Reliable, Independent, Third-Party sources that mention this software exclusively. We have an article with a passing reference, and a handful of security warnings from a software security website. Nothing that would denote a passing of WP:V. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In my opinion WP:V isn't really the issue here. Any claims about third parties that are made in the article are referenced and WP:V specifically allows self-published sources to be used in articles about themselves. As I see it notability is the problem, and it is important to remember that, despite earlier claims, WP:CORP and WP:WEB are only guidelines and not policies, and that WP:SOFTWARE is not even a guideline. As a proposed guideline it should be treated with a great deal of caution - a criterion that it puts forward may be the opinion of no more than a couple of people, and may be gone tomorrow. The wikilawyering by the article's supporters isn't helping, but I'd ask everybody to look at the article again and ask yourself whether you would nominate it for deletion if you came across it at random. I'm not arguing in favour of it because I fixed it up (I've fixed up articles and still argued for them to be deleted), but because I think the bar for notability here is being set too high when compared to other articles we've kept (kept after AFD, not kept because nobody has put them up for deletion yet). Yomangani^talk 23:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The only thing I want to point out is there are limits to what is acceptable as a self-published source (From WP:V) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Hence the reason I said this fails WP:V --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment But if you continue to the next paragraph: Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
        • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
        • It is not contentious;
        • It is not unduly self-serving;
        • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
        • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

I read that as in this case the Bitweaver site being an acceptable source for the article's claims. Yomangani^talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yomangani, I completely respect your opinion in this matter and thank you for keeping civil discourse when so many would fall into feeling this was a personal matter. Again thank you! To continue the debate, the reason I failed to mention this part is because I believe their personal website fails because it is unduly self-serving and with the comment about the "bitweaver vs 'the man': Will takes on NYC cronies" it involves claims about third parties and events not directly related to the subject. I am not seeing how their website is also relevant to their notability. I'll be happy to keep an open mind in this matter and welcome you to correct any errors in my thinking in this matter --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 16:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, it appears that we have interpreted the policy in different ways - I looked at those rules as applying to the material directly used in the resulting article, whereas you seem to have applied them to the source material in general. Unfortunately, when looking again at the policy it doesn't seem clear (at least to me) which is correct, so I can't very well continue trying to convince you of my point when I could be wrong. Just for the record, I was never claiming that the material from the site established notability, just that it allowed the article to be exempt from the requirement for additional third party sources when refering to itself (and hence not failing WP:V or WP:OR). I stick by my Keep for the reasons I've already stated (and thank you also for engaging in a civil exchange). Yomangani^talk 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, now I understand where you are coming from as I wasn't clear on it before. So, Yes, I can see how you would be correct in that sense. Thank you for clearing this up! BTW: as a side note, I have given you a Civil Discourse Barnstar. Check your talk page. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• I second that Barnstar to Yomangani, and thanks to all who have remained civil during this sometimes heated debate. --Satori Son 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Passing mentions in articles and interviews doesn't constitute multiple substantial independent publications, and so this doesn't meet our criteria for notability. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - and that goes for everything listed on List of content management systems - "By arguing over what should be kept/deleted, we lose information. We lose readers. We lose editors."--Spiderr 05:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That essay is about the stupidity of deleting and keeping mindlessly. Its argument is that non-notable articles should be merged, not kept or deleted. So, what are you suggesting this be merged with? — Saxifrage ✎ 07:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an argument for deleting nothing. Ever. Great, we'll have an encylopedia full of vanity articles, nonsense and other gibberish. I'm off to write an article about my slightly gungy big toe nail. --Dweller 09:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentThis AfD is not about mindless deleting or inclusion. The problem with your arguement is that this AfD is about if the article passes all of WP's Standards. If it does, GREAT! If it can not be proven it does pass all the standards then it does not have a place on Wikipedia. So far, it does not pass two of the main pillars of Wikipedia...WP:V, WP:OR (Possibly WP:NPOV but perhaps it's just how I preceive the tone the article takes) --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 13:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Brian - if you can't make reasonable arguments based on the policies or guidelines, then your "Keep" is worthless in the face of the arguments to delete. Yomangani^talk 16:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    • My point in making this reference is not to promote the mergist philosophy, though I find it a useful approach, but to reiterate this well made point that all this fighting simply makes people frustrated and they leave. And this is particlularly true when critcism is offered without matching constructive feedback. This not a debate i started nor wish to be a part.--Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

CommentI made some edits to attempt to address WP:V, WP:OS, and WP:NPOV, and address Yomangani's nicely laid out issues on the Talk page. If anyone has any has a constructive suggestions, please make a positive edit and add specific suggestions.--Spiderr 12:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Spiderr, the article STILL is lacking proper sources. All that was done was a bit of rearranging. The links haven't been changed or added to, nothing has been done to satisfy any of posted reasons for deletion. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 13:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Brian, Apparently we are not able to communicate well. The shifting sands of WP:this and WP:that, not to mention the "highly contentious" notability guidelines throughout this dialog, without making specific reference to the exact information at issue is very unhelpful. Yomangani has done a great job listing his issues on the Talk page so they can be addressed and that works very well. Please list very detailed criticisms of what you consider at issue on the Talk page, or better yet, please make a positive contribution to the article so it can meet your standards. Both of these actions require some time and effort on your part, however since you are advocating removal of knowledge, I certainly would appreciate some elbow grease to convince me this information should be removed, or as I said, i would love if you could lend a hand and bring it up to your own standards. Thanks --Spiderr 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of the notability discussion is now way over my head. I strongly believe that editors shouldn't weigh in when they don't understand and I don't plan on proving myself a hypocrite. I've struck out my "delete" opinion above and am happy to leave resolution to those who can follow the tech jargon. In any case, I strongly commend the efforts of the editors fighting to keep this article and hope that they will contribute elsewhere to the Wikipedia project. We need people who will fight for issues without losing their rag. --Dweller 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Spiderr, that isn't something I have to do. You are more than capable of reading all the reasons listed above without me having to rehash them for you. No, I don't wish to contribute to the article. The Authors of the article in question are the people whom have to prove to the rest of Wikipedia that the article should be kept...not the reverse. You're word twisting will not work here. The case has been proven and the closing administrator will see that the arguements for delete have not been addressed --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 17:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was really trying to stay out of this since my participation seems to anger Spiderr so much, but I really have to back up Brian on this one. Wikipedia:Verifiability, under the "Burden of evidence" section, clearly states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Volunteer editors, whose financial interests are not tied to whether this article stays or goes, should not be browbeaten into doing the job of Bitweaver's marketing department. --Satori Son 18:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete apparent vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • JzG - Thanks for your participation. I appreciate all the edits you have made on software technical articles. I would request a re-consideration of VSCA if you have time for a recap of how we got here. I am a leader in this project, though with 60 developers, and tens of thousands of downloads, this is not my personal project. After the initial AfD, community came and tried to improve the quality, however, their, er "over-exuberance" led to a rash of non NPOV edits. After a delete, it was quickly recreated by someone else with a copyvio. So, Xinggg and I tried to step in and avoid the "help" of the community, to make a fair, and complete article that would sit well along side articles of sibling applications so the uninformed can understand how these applications compare in design, functionality, and purpose 1, 2, 3, etc. In light the frequent unhelpful recent re-edits, we have done our best with what we feel is in the best interest of Wikipedia, and hopefully set a good tone and model for future edits. Thanks for your time. --Spiderr 21:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• You appear to eb editing content in which you have a vested interest. That is a bad idea. Just zis Guy you know? 11:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - added more reference links. woo, listed on smarty.php.net now. --Spiderr 05:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Satori Son's reasoning. GBYork 11:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Is very useful software, people should know about it. Stalin.P҉G 01:33, 21 August 2006 (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.