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. The arguments for deleteion were generally that there currently aren't any reliable sources in the sense of academic or journalism-type sources that cover it in any depth. The argument that Mind map-related software is a new field rendering it hard to find secondary sources covering individual products in depth is noted, but this argument tends to cut in favor deletion rather than keeping. The WP:N and WP:V policies tend to favor waiting until new fields receive secondary coverage at the detail level before providing articles at that level. The subject can still be included in a general article on mind-map related software. --Shirahadasha (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cayra[edit]

Cayra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable, beta software. Article has been without sources since creation in Nov'07. Ronz (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please see #Discussion below. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge – Rather than delete how about a merge to Mind Map under a sub heading “Software”? Seems like a natural fit. Shoessss |  Chat  18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed in List of mind mapping software, but will be removed if Cayra is removed per the list inclusion criteria as discussed in WP:LIST and Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Ronz (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources from which notability could be judged, as argued by some participants at Talk:Cayra. There is no exception for software products from the sourcing requirements that apply to all articles. (Look through this article's references and see if you can find any newspapers, magazines, or edited web sites of known reputation such as www.zdnet.com or www.cnet.com). Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote, not normally accepted as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Without rebuttal or a discussion to the arguments made which support this article's notability, or a reason why 3rd party references are illegitimate, there is no reason to delete this article. Not one person asking for delete has presented a reasoned argument why this software is not notable. Wiki's mandate is that reason trumps all else. The full argument for keep is found in the talk page of the article itself. I just have to say that's it's a little amusing to see EdJohnson complain above that "Killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll in which anyone can vote". Remember, Killerstartups.com is used to establish notability, WP:N not to verify potentially disputed facts, WP:V . But creating a forum where people voice their opinions is just what we are doing here. So by EdJohnson's own logic, this forum is meaningless and none of our voices matter, either.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikiwatcher9999[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. Jmlk17 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Information easily verified from project website. Sources to determine notability are too subjective in this field to tilt the scale either way i'm afraid. Sources provided are sufficient to extend leeway to the project. In other words, come up with something fast or this is going down. Lsingel (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This comment above is the very first comment made by the new editor Lsingel. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note And this is germane for what reason RONZ? Is it what appears the obvious reason- you're insinuating sock puppetry- or some other reason? Please tell us why you made this edit beneath Lsingel's entry. I was a longtime wiki user before I jumped in because I saw what was going on and I have had a near vertical learning curve about how all this works in attempting to keep up with the procedural maneuvers you've employed to have your way. Your actions effect a lot of people, some of whom can be expected to get fed up and come wading in also. But more to the point, once again, for possibly the 20th time, editor RONZ has sought a means other than rational debate about the facts at hand to force his views. You falsely accused me of sock puppetry earlier in this process. You falsely accused me of not meeting the requirements for the arbitration process we are now legitimately in. You have done everything but behave as wikipeidans are expected to. I have no problem with you. I do have a problem with your editing and your insinuations and attacks on other wikipedians.wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

This is standard practice in AfD discussions, identifying new editors that are contributing to the AfD.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette for further information on how to participate in an AfD. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on grounds of notability alone. TheRingess (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable; sources do not appear to meet WP:RS and a search for some better ones has not come up with anything. nancy ^(talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikieditor9999 has left a note on my talk page asking me to come back here and "defend my postition". I think that my !vote was fairly self-explanatory, however if anyone unfamiliar with WP:RS wants more detail on the deficiencies in the cited sources there is an excellent analysis on the Cayra talk page nancy ^(talk) 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:N. No reason this article can't be recreated if proper sources ever exist to establish notability, but they don't appear to now, and until they do, this article fails to meet the standards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No assertion of notability; software is not even out of beta. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per arguments above (WP:NN) and here. Article is WP:OWNed by a WP:SPA newbie who dosen't seem to understand (or perhaps doesn't want to based on arguements below) fundamental Wikipedia policy and wikiquette as well has is very threatening in nature. Shot info (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have compiled relevant information regarding SPAs that have edited the article here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources, only trivial information available in the non-reliable ones. Plenty of time and effort appears to have been wasted in trying to acquire references. I'm actually surprised at the patience displayed on the article's talk page. Kuru ^talk 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 1. Simply because there will be reliable sources, I'm sure. The press is recognizing this software, a bit slowly maybe. I have added references to more articles and cleaned up the mess made out of 'external links' section. What's the hurry about deletion? Especially if 2. There're people who think this software is notable, this issue matters to them and they're ready to defend their point of view (and they are NOT this software creators!).. Wikipedia project is about people, isn't it? So why are we not listening to people? Zabriski (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Zabriski is the article's original author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Zabriski is mentioned on this discussion's talk page as one of the SPAs editing this article. Zabriski, I would ask that you to consider "listening to people" yourself. We have guidelines and policies for a reason, and WP:N and WP:RS are pretty big ones. FreeMind has on the order of 300,000 users. Cayra does not. Zabriski, I'd love to keep this article if it conforms to policy and guidelines, but it doesn't meet our standards. If you can come up with a way to make it meet our standards, that would settle the matter, but "there will be reliable sources" is not a valid "keep" rationale - Wikipedia is not about predicting the future. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you're right. I guess I'm defending this article because it was my contribution to Wiki and it'd be sad to see it go.

I created the article because I saw a lot of interest in this application from the users of mind-mapping software. And more and more people nowdays prefer to ask Wiki rather than Google. Besides, you say that FreeMind has more users, well then please point out somewhere in Wiki guidelines how many thousand users you need in order for the software to be recognised as notable. (I'm writing this just because FreeMind article has no reliable sources either, that's all). Thanks for staying cool-headed in this discussion. Zabriski (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the relevant discussion at Talk:FreeMind#Notability. Please also keep in mind that the existence of the article FreeMind is not a valid rationale for keeping this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or at least Wait. This area (mindmap software) is relatively new and seems to be fast-growing; the idea seems a development from stuff like Visio, but aimed at less formal applications (brain-storming as opposed to flowcharting). The Cayra site itself is professionally done and the displays they render are certainly nice. There are independent reviews (I found some blogs that have prior histories reviewing other mindmapping software). And they seem to be the only ones aiming at the .Net framework (which I despise, myself, but obviously it's still relevant). I concede it's only Beta. So at least a brief article with the links is more helpful than not. However, there is another issue: the Irresistable Contributor (Wikieditor9999, whose English may be suboptimal) meeting the Unmoveable Editor (Ronz, with whom I myself am currently involved in a dispute). IMO it would be premature to nuke the article while other editors (Anthon01 and myself) are in dispute with the nominator for deletion, on the same subject (unfair debating practices) as the articles main contributor (9999). OTOH the RfC is not getting any attention currently. Pete St.John (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I have moved this discussion below the main set of !votes in order to maintain readability. wikiwatcher9999's comment immediately below refers to the initial delete rationale provided by Ronz above. Note also that comments not directly relevant to the deletion discussion have been moved to the talk page. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note The above statement by Ronz is false. non-Notable is a POV from Ronz; notability as per WP:N is listed in article. Ronz should read the beta article to better understand the meaning of the words he uses. Article has been with sources, except at that point where Ronz unilaterally removed all content from page, after which he flagged it for not having sources. See cayra talk section for timeline and details. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

Actually, the sources you added are not reliable, independent sources, which are what is required. The content he removed (lists of features, etc) read alot more like unsourced advertising clipped from Cayra's website than an encyclopedia article (although, to stem an edit war, he has been mature enough to stop removing the content). As for your allegations that Ronz is making "false" statements, let's check. This software is in Version 0.9.0. Versions that start with 0 indicate beta versions, that's a standard versioning convention. It is still under heavy, fundamental development, as beta software would be. Please check your facts before you accuse users of presenting misinformation in bad faith - you are wrong on both counts. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the source's reliability, Cheesaer1, that is what is under dispute. Your asserting that they are not is called "assuming the consequent", or trying to prove the conclusion by assuming it is true. This is a well known logical fallacy. Please note that your posts will be taken more seriously if you don't argue using logical fallacies. As for the removal of material by Ronz and its nature, actually, here's the the original version: [[1]] and here's the version after Ronz was done with it, and which he flagged. [[2]]. As for tis beign beta, where I work it goes alpha, then beta, then released versions leading up to a 1.0 release. So you stand corrected by a professional software developer. If your shop does differently, it is helpful to keep in mind that your opinion is not the epicenter of all perspective, but see my comment about assuming the consequent earlier. Thank you for participating in this forum by the way. wikiwatcher9999 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

So you have a conflict of interest in this debate, given that you most likely are a developer on the Cayra project? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer, wikiwatcher9999 is NOT a developer on the Cayra project. Trust me, because I am part of the project :-)

It's quite a dispute here, too bad I've found out about it just today( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia sova (talk • contribs)

Odd. You seem to be contradicting a well sourced article on software versioning. Versions 0.x are universally beta version. Furthermore, your assertions of being an expert or source of information regarding software versioning conventions are irrelevant because you are not a source of reliable information. Nor am I, although I could tell you that my best friend, a professional software developer sitting not 4 feet from me at this very moment, agrees with what is stated in software versioning and disagrees with your assertion that 0.x would normally denote anything other than betaware. The only way your assertion that 0.x is not betaware could be taken as reliable information is if it were true in this specific exception to the general rule, and the only way you would be able to establish that is if you had information specific to the development Cayra. Which may be a problem, as Seicer has said. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being pedantic, but a 0.x version does not denote a beta. It generally denotes a pre-release version and as such might be an alpha. In any case, its an odd dev shop that would deviate from a well established convention on the numbering. -- Whpq (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes, clearly, but it's still at best beta. I appreciate you catching that technicality (thoroughness is always good), but of course, that only opens up possibilities that make it even less likely for the article to be kept (although it's pretty clear that Cayra is past alpha). --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is specifically NOT well sourced as of today Jan ( 2008, when it starts talking about versioning, I have worked at MANY shops and that is NOT ALWAYS the the versioning process, although it SOMETIMES is the versioning process. Not only did you get the reality wrong, you cited a bad article to boot. But you know how it is, you can't trust anything Wikipedia says. Now I know why.69.137.246.27 (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)wikieditor9999[reply]

I would ask, once again, that you keep your comments on-topic. Disregarding your irrelevant points about Wikipedia, I'll point out that the article is not tagged as improperly sourced. The article software versioning is only tagged as requiring clean up. Please do not misrepresent such things. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 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.