Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZCubes


 * 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 keep. John254 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ZCubes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is a thinly-veiled advertisement. See Talk:ZCubes. DanielPenfield (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Am not convinced that the article is unsalvagable. Some reliable sources which cover ZCubes significantly are available -, (google cache version) and . Based on those I think a valid and notable article is possible here. The issues identified by the nominator are real but can be addressed by cleanup. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Comment  This topic appears notable after some research and new references, the original sources were weak, some being blogs and the others online magazines with questionable editorial oversight and independence. However, there is credibility to the new sources.  I would vote keep if one solid source were added to the several weak ones . --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added 2 of the 3 sources I identified above to the article as references. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * David, my g-search yielded recognition in an article by The UK Guardian and much other chatter to make me think there has to be something strong out there. The Hindu is mildly compelling and with the Guardian piece it will do the trick.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reality check #1: It took you over three hours (from here to here) of web searching to find what you believe to be a "reliable" source.  If the google/Yahoo search/Livesearch page rank puts it down on page 426 of the page results after 4260+ links from obscure web-zines, part-time bloggers, and outright advertisements, really, how worthy a source could it possibly be?
 * Reality check #2: The Guardian "piece" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/06/link.link12) is a six-sentence mention in a "websites we think you should visit"-type advertorial that is something you'd find in the "features" section of your newspaper along with the comics, relationship columns, recipes, and crossword puzzles.  ZCubes shares space in this "piece" with a website for "furry elephants" and another for "embarassing bodies".  No reasonable person would ever mistake this "piece" for the investigative journalism.
 * Reality check #3: The ZCubes advertisement still contains, as of this writing, "citations" that include a Spam blacklisted website and website that makes no mention of the product at all, just photos of its company's executive giving a talk at a lightly-attended community college "conference".  See Talk:ZCubes for details.  Yet you expect the rest of us to believe that finding advertorials in the The Hindu and The Guardian somehow removes this unabashed WP:COI taint from the ZCubes advertisement.
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reality is that you are discussing issues related to editing the content not deciding the AfD. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reality is that you claimed "I would vote keep if one solid source were added to the several weak ones" and then turned around and added an advertorial, then changed your story to "there is credibility to the new sources." Sourcing an advertisement with advertisements does not help Wikipedia.  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep A badly sourced article on a notable subject is should be improved, not deleted. lk (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article was primarily written by a few editors (TOReilly, Millerclarissa, RayFrench, LNRyan, SarkowA, MeghaABS, ScottmaM, Rishihima, PeteDevries, etc), none of whom have user pages and whose few edits are either solely or mainly based around this article. I suspect that they are employees. If the article is kept, it will need a rewrite. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A giveaway sign is how it is written - almost every sentence starts "ZCubes does this, ZCubes is, ZCubes provides..." If this article is to remain, a lot will have to be done to stop it from looking like a copyvio from their own website. I am leaning towards Delete doktorb wordsdeeds 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in clear agreement with Escape and Dok, but poor style and non-encyclopedic intent on the part of the contributors is not a reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to editors: Kevin Murray bears a grudge after I criticized him for his careless edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZCubes&diff=next&oldid=230472047, in which he not only unilaterally decided that the ZCubes advertisement was ineligible for  despite my careful research presented in Talk:ZCubes, he also inexplicably deleted the article's infobox.  His breathless championing of the ZCubes advertisement is entirely due to my harsh words rather than whether Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as a free advertising platform for ZCubes.  I'd ask you to disregard his attempt at vote-stacking pandering and concentrate on the question:  Should we aid and abet the spammers who authored this article?  Or should we send the clear message that Wikipedia does not allow advertisements? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sure Kevin will declare any interest in this discussion doktorb wordsdeeds 06:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials, sources such as those are commonly used as references on wikipedia and, unless there is some evidence that has not been revealed here, they do fit the definition we use on the advertorial page. Secondly needing cleanup, being poorly written or being written in a non neutral point of view are grounds for asking the article to be improved but are not grounds for deletion. Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray? I fail to see anything to suggest he has done any canvassing but instead he has quite properly found another source towards notability which he has added to the article. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Statement !! Response The Hindu's http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/30/stories/2007123054481100.htm is an advertisement for ZCubes, 100% promotion from its title (which trumpets "ZCubes will soon have innovative web-driven spreadsheet") to its conclusion ("A ‘cool’ cyber-age calculator might just be the foot in the door that leads to Web. 3.0 and beyond.") The Hindu's One-stop cyber shop for creativity is also an advertisment for ZCubes, featuring such rhapsodic gems as ''"Enthusiastic blog postings on the Web speak of the browser-based ZCubes achievement as `disruptive technology' that all too rarely shakes up the Internet by unveiling an inspired tool or resource which leaves users saying: "Why didn't any one think of doing this before? It's what we always wanted!""'' http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/06/link.link12 is an advertisement for http://www.cilt.org.uk/14to19, http://www.furryelephant.com, http://home.zcubes.com, http://www.channel4embarrassingillnesses.com, and http://teachtoday.eu/home/, complete with pricing information for the "furry elephant": "available on an annual subscription basis - £99 for physics [...] and £49 for PSHE"
 * "I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials" ||
 * "I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials" ||
 * "sources such as those are commonly used as references on wikipedia" || Post examples and I'll show you "articles" that are little more than free advertisements.Doesn't it bother you that product reviews such as and  are considered "reliable sources"?  Are you truly unable or unwilling to distinguish between advertising and legitimate journalism/scholarship?
 * "being poorly written or being written in a non neutral point of view are grounds for asking the article to be improved but are not grounds for deletion" || Criteria_for_speedy_deletion G#11 "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."
 * "Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray?" || I overstated the case and have corrected it.
 * }
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray?" || I overstated the case and have corrected it.
 * }
 * -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE User DanielPenfield suggested this issue at the WP:CORP discussion page as a reason to justify his attempts to unilaterally rewrite that guideline, where he was reverted by myself and another, but gained no specific support for his edits. After reviewing the Zcubes article and finding it moderately referenced I removed his prod tag as allowed by procedure and suggested that it be sent to AfD to discuss and improve the sources. Dan accused me of misdeeds at my talk page and the WP:CORP talk page, including offensive comments about MBAs (my degree as described at my user page) ethics and abilities. Prior to this I had no knowledge of Dan nor ZCubes. My further involvement has been to, do a Google search, add a reference (Guardian), and divide the bibliography (reference) section from the footnotes. In an effort to rectify the situation I will be seeking career/vocational counseling and rehabilitation, return several million dollars that I have treacherously extorted from the free-markets, and hang my head in shame all weekend long. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you need any more definitive proof that ZCubes is an advertisement, just check out the edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZCubes&diff=prev&oldid=231448234, made by the single-purpose account Special:Contributions/MicroTalk1. Note the removal of passage describing the "inventor"—confirming that Pally is the spammer behind the phalanx of single-purpose accounts editing this article (to wit:  Special:Contributions/TOReilly, Special:Contributions/PeteDevries, Special:Contributions/RayFrench, Special:Contributions/LNRyan, Special:Contributions/SarkowA, Special:Contributions/ScottmaA, Special:Contributions/MeghaABS).  -- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The Hindu is a single-edition English-language Indian newspaper. With a circulation of 1.17 million copies, The Hindu has its largest base of circulation in South India, especially Tamil Nadu. Begun in 1878, it was founded on the principles of fairness and justice. Headquartered at Chennai (formerly called Madras), The Hindu was published weekly when it was launched and started publishing daily in 1889.
 * (as per Wikipedia - and is a respected source.
 * Also check http://yihongs-research.blogspot.com/2008/04/zcubes-towards-web-30.html . Yihong Ding is a widely respected writer on Web 3.0.
 * [Wikipedia states:
 * The Hindu is a single-edition English-language Indian newspaper. With a circulation of 1.17 million copies, The Hindu has its largest base of circulation in South India, especially Tamil Nadu. Begun in 1878, it was founded on the principles of fairness and justice. Headquartered at Chennai (formerly called Madras), The Hindu was published weekly when it was launched and started publishing daily in 1889.
 * The Hindu became, in 1995, the first Indian newspaper to offer an online edition.[1]. The Hindu is the most circulated periodical in India with a circulation of 1,102,783 copies, according to the Registrar of Newspapers for India (The Sunday Times of India is second with a circulation of 1,038,954 copies).
 * Daniel may find the above interesting... Accusing one of the articles in one of the most fair newspapers in 100 years as an advertisement is ridiculous. Daniel Penfield should consider editing the Wikipedia page on 'The Hindu' stating that.
 * Absurd Drivel from DanielPenfield who is a statistician making poor statistical observation. All these contributors seem to have different styles of writing. I think the edit by MicroTalk improved the article by removing a persons name. Not sure if Mr. Pally is relevant to an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgeOne (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * — EdgeOne (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lucaskant (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Minor edits may be required, but generally the article is ok. Webpage developers like me find this software useful, and the information is of interest to us. Wikipedia is a neutral source we go to get updates on ZCubes.Annaklein92 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The guardian coverage Kevin cited looks as of something of interest to anyone who is interested in Internet evolution. the article can use some editing, esp. removing references to any individiuals.
 * Keep In reference to comments on reality check 1, 2 and 3 as presented by Daniel, (1) the amount of web search has no significance on a topic. In Google, some items may not be listed according to their significance (check on topic Sex for academic information) (2) In a newspaper like Guardian, one would typically expect articles of local murders, Iraq invasion and John Edwards Affair, along with a website of significance like ZCubes. (3) Looks like a presentation at CUNY is worthy of note, when the other participants are from Google, Microsoft and Adobe. Someone's suggestive personal attacks on one of ZCubes executives looks silly, as I am sure the CEO of such companies will certainly have better things to do that edit Wikipedia. I have been a user of ZCubes for a while, and have been quite impressed by it. I have always used Wikipedia to find more neutral information about ZCubes. Going through this discussion I find it disheartening the way that one person of questionable credentials seems to be trashing world renowned newspapers (like the Guardian and Hindu) and sources (such as bloggers like McManus with 250000 readership) as trivial. A cleanup of the references may be appropriate. However, deletion is not a good step for a technology that is considered to be very notable in technical circles. Much of the article looks real in content, could certainly be worded better.Eisenhowerdd (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.