The XPLANE entry on Wikipedia has been marked for deletion.Update: The page has been deleted based on the opinion of Wikipedia editors that the company is not notable enough. There were dissenting opinions. You can read the discussion at the articles marked for deletion page -- but please don't edit the page as the discussion has been closed. I have put the article up for deletion review, which means a larger pool of editors reviews the decision to delete.
However, anyone who believes differently is always free to write a new article about XPLANE. Be aware that any article must cite evidence of notability, such as multiple, independent, reliable sources, writing about XPLANE in some significant way. If anyone is interested I will be happy to supply such references.
And as always, please leave a comment and share your thoughts.
Thanks in advance,
Dave
Thanks Guy!
ReplyDeleteThanks Toby!
ReplyDeleteHi, Dave.
ReplyDeleteActually I don't have account on Wiki, because really can't find time for doing this pretty things there. But want to say that, I was born in Uzbekistan, living in Russia, and know XPLANE for really pretty things done to the Communication.
And that's a pity (for Wiki and people around) if a student's voice is worthier then a group of experts, and practicing people.
(sorry for my french)
Get ready for a fight. You need to get other Wiki librarians to fight for you. I had created an entry for a notable company and was a huge grudge match. If your not publicly traded its an up hill battle with those wiki people.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask why you are requesting that people who don't think that XPLANE is notable 'keep it to themselves'. Do you mean on the comments page, or on the blog?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would like to know why you felt the need to point out my age? Do you feel that this entitles me to less of an opinion?
Yes Veinor, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I do feel that your age makes your opinion less relevant to this debate.
ReplyDelete1. XPLANE's primary historical contributions were during the dot com revolution which you did not participate in. Eyewitness accounts are always more credible than others.
2. You demonstrate no experience or expertise in information design. Expert opinions tend to be considered more valid than the opinions of high school students, unless they have been recognized in some way as outstanding in the given field (exampkle: Mozart).
In addition your argument seems to be shifting, which puts your motives into question. Your first assertion was that XPLANE was not notable. Then I added some information to demonstrate why XPLANE is notable.
Then you attacked the article saying it was too much like advertising. You seem to have me between a rock and hard place. If I assert relevance it's advertising. If I don't, the company isn't notable.
Veinor, is this about what's best for Wikipedia or is it about winning?
The comment about people keeping opinions to themselves was a joke -- it's doubtful that people who read my blog think the company I founded and have devoted my life to is not notable.
I will modify the post to clarify this.
mFirst, I am a touch concerned as you called for "meatpuppets" to come in and help explain why you are notable.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the article does seem like advertising. I am not the wordsmith you need to fix that, but I think it could be.
Third, I love XPLANE and your work. If you continue to execute and delight the inclusion on Wikipedia won't make much difference.
I am not 'shifting my argument'; I am merely stating that if the page does remain (I don't know if it will), then the marked section should be rewritten; phrases such as "In a relatively short period of time XPLANE has been recognized as an innovator in communicating complex information" seems unencyclopedic to me. I'm not saying that the whole article should be scrapped and rewritten; there's something for that. There are ways to assert notability without advertising. Also, the fact that I added the {{advert}} tag after you provided arguments for notability is a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteI will admit that my age does affect my opinion; however, the opinion of the people who came here via your site is also affected. They would probably already have a favorable stance towards the company; your opinion is affected also for similar reasons.
And as anonymous said, asking people with known points of view to weigh in on an AfD (Article for Deletion) debate is generally frowned on, due to the fact that it exaggerates the amount of support one side has.
Well, I agree with everyone's points, including mine -- and yours Venior.
ReplyDeleteVenior, I have no doubt that you are acting with good intentions.
My blog is the primary vehicle with which I share opinions with the professional community of which I am a part. I do delete comments occasionally, but not because people disagree (I delete comments that are rude or unprofessional).
Appealing to the community was a natural act for me. Anonymous: I didn't mean it as a call for "meat puppets." And certainly, XPLANE does not live or die based on whether Wikipedia thinks it's important.
Remember though, that I didn't write the article. I simply don't think it's appropriate to delete it.
And I agree the article could be better. But anything I write would look like advocacy at this point.
I am at a loss about what to do at this point and open to suggestions from all of you.
My suggestion is that the article become marked for cleanup but not deletion. Addt'l citations for notability will help that effort.
ReplyDeleteThanks Aaron, I appreciate your thoughts and effort.
ReplyDeleteI have revised the post to address some readers' concerns. It no longer asks people to explain why we are notable, but simply that they should visit Wikipedia and say what they think.
ReplyDeleteUpdate: XPLANE has been deleted from Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteWow. How utterly stupid.
ReplyDeleteSorry Dave - it seems the decision was made long before any feedback actually came in.
I guess we'll just to have to add it back in later :)
It is interesting to see that a free and open site such as the Wikipedia has developed a self-appointed police force who believes they have the responsibility to determine what is appropriate and what is not. I don't know what Veinor's intentions were, but the audacity displayed is quite troubling. If Veinor believes he has the responsibility to regulate information, then there is nothing we can do about that. Especially troubling is his audacity to assume a "position of power" with such little experience and limited knowledge! The question now remains "who's going to police the police?"
ReplyDeleteWe need a powerful network to proof them wrong, Dave.
ReplyDeleteThey will include XPLANE again soon. Of that I am sure. By Wikipedia standards is probably today easier to have you as leading Visual communicator included than the company you have created. It will change..
Who whom this may concern: I'm a student graduating from Foresk Park, looking for an internship; and this company is the company that I want to be apart of. Please Hire Me!
ReplyDelete-a student from Forest Park,
Vahn