Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watermark charm interaction

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. Walton ^{Need some help?} 17:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watermark charm interaction

A variant on mouse gestures. I tagged it as original research. Non-notable, not-yet-widely implemented idea might be better. -- RHaworth 10:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Assumed keep.] Reason for deletion has changed from 'original research' to not being notable. Notability only being raised after deletion was queried. Also isnt it true that if there is a reference in a journal then it has notability, since it was raised to the awareness of the experts in the field through publishing.

Notability surely isn't an issue with an entry based on knowledge? The whole purpose of a reference is to access information that isn't known to the reader. For example some knowledge in physics is known only to a few, but would still be mentioned in a encyclopedia. If new knowledge is not referenced until it is noteworthy then the whole notion of a Wikipedia is flawed since it will not introduce factual entries until they are in common usage, making it by design lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources. Maybe there should be a mechanism to retrospectively assess notability to avoid this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)

"By design, lacking in innovation and one step behind other resources". Yes that sums up Wikipedia policy pretty well. -- RHaworth 15:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont feel that it is appropriate to obliquely and facetiously poke fun at a valid comments. Though I do have a sense of humor and do see the funny side. - Why not just explain that my point here is wrong, otherwise WP would fill up with junk entries?

Delete per nom. Large parts of the article are almost word-for-word copies of Mouse gesture. The author Cityzen451 is presumably the owner of http://www.cityzen451.co.uk which is a software company that has a product using "Watermark charm" technology and has added a spam link to the site from Mouse gesture, which is in turn linked from this article, so there's a COI issue as well. andy 15:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's precisely one reliable source for this, an academic paper that has apparently not been cited by any other papers in the two years since its publication (at least not papers that citeseer knows about). There are very few ghits for either "watermark charm" or "user interface overloading". This suggests the idea isn't an important one. JulesH 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey hold on this is getting a little libelous a word for word copy because I wrote that section!!! I'm an academic and that hurts:/ Note that I wrote that section even handedly enough that it was not thought to be my own work, suggesting the issue of conflict of interest has been handled appropriately. It shouldnt matter that I am the owner of cityzen451.co.uk, which I am and I make no bones about it, I'm obviously going to write an article that is of interest to me perhaps even relevant to me. A link is not a spam link if it is linking to a product that is comparable to other gesture tools, that are listed in that section. The other points of precisely one reference is irrelevant, precisely one should be enough, since it is related to a gesture tool that is in wide use. However, I cant put a link to mojo sidekick there because I'd straight off be accused of spamming, which would lead to an automatic delete. Type in mojo sidekick and check the download figures 10,000. Also I was very even handed in my assessment of Mojo Sidekick. It doesnt pay to think the worst in everyone's actions So please let's not call in the lynch mob just yet.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Visual Overloading: Adjunct Proceedings HCI International2003 June 2003, 67-68.

Hudson, J. and Parkes, A., Novel Interaction Style for Handheld Devices: Adjunct Proceedings UBICOMP04, Oct 2003, 52-55. J. Hudson, A. Dix and A. Parkes.

User Interface Overloading, a Novel Approach for Handheld Device Text Input. Proceedings of HCI2004, 2004 Sept, Springer-Verlag.

User Interface Overloading, International Patent Application, no. PCT/GB2004/002538

Just because something is not on the internet doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And, may I politely ask that the accusation of plagiarism be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs)

The fact is that parts of Watermark charm interaction are copies of Mouse gesture, which would be OK if Watermark charm interaction had sufficient merit as an article in its own right and it expanded significantly on Mouse gesture. The purpose of this debate is to explore whether it does have merit. In addition your involvement with cityzen451.co.uk represents a potential conflict of interest, which is something that wikipedians are always wary of. And there is indeed a link to your site from Mouse gesture. andy 18:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cityzen451 - please see our guideline pages WP:N (which requires a subject to have been covered by multiple sources before it is included in Wikipedia) and WP:COI (which gives guidelines on how to edit wikipedia if you have a conflict of interest). JulesH 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be stated explictly that Cityzen451 is the J Hudson whose works are mentioned in the article and in this debate [1]. In other words the only references given are by the author of the article. There are no independent third party sources so this article totally fails notability. andy 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI Andy, I agree with your comments and I'm encouraged that Wikipedia has a heavy grain of integrity running through it. I was in two minds what to do here, I couldn't merge it with mouse gesture because it would distort the mouse gesture entry, so I decided to write a new entry. please do note that the entries in Mouse gestures and Watermark... are similar because they are discussing similar issues. Watermark does have particular merit because it addresses and solves the issues that are central to producing a satisfactory mouse gesture interaction model. I understand fully that Wikipedians are wary of COIs, however if a contributer is acting responsibly then there is no reason to be alarmed, and this I guess is where this very process comes in and the irresponsible are weeded out. Yes there is a link to my site from mouse gesture, but please note that only because it is very relevant, however in the other article watermarking article, you could note that I did refrain from adding a link due to potential accusations of spamming and conflicts of interest, however since the article is based on a notable issue, since a uk patent has been granted and there are a significant number of people using Mojo Sidekick, shouldn't the article be suitable for inclusion with a link to Mojo sidekick and mojo gesture to confirm its notability. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with me. I'll check the references you mention and discuss my findings with you.

Thank you I agree, I have had the references validated by debating them in this forum, I have exercised caution and have avoided a conflict of interest, the section on COI doesn't preclude contributors only that they should exercise caution, I have and we are discussing this in this forum. The fact that I am the author and I'm available on Whois only goes to show that I have integrety and that I'm not in any way trying to conceal who I am(?) There is sufficient notability since, there are multiple sources, such as download sites, download figure that signify over 10,000 people have used Mojo, and a patent application (which in a sense has the same status as a geographic location) , three journal articles and I dare say everyone who looks at this page has heard of Mojo after listening to this racket I'm making about this.

Okay thank you for providing the links to notability, (though I dont really see the significance of notability of porn stars as a category or are we taking wikipedia too serious and havent noticed) the issue of independent and multiple sources seems to me to have been misinterpreted or that the understanding of a journal article is being mixed up. Submitting an article to a journal is not self publication, it is the reporting of knowledge to an accepted authoritative body who through a process of peer review, accept or decline an article. It is that body that publish the article not the author, and therefore such articles qualify as independent, this is the whole point of journal submission, the editors are compiling a resource and publishing it not the individual authors. Whereas submitting on citeseer is self publication since an article can be submitted by the individual.

Delete Despite the creators objections, I don't see much evidence of notability per WP:N or WP:ATT. If all the info comes from the creator of this program then that is not independent verifiability. 10,000 downloads doesn't sound like much nor does a patent application as even a actual patent is not a definite sign of notability. Lastly posting a few thousand word on Wikipedia does not count towards notability in the least. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Daniel I didn't follow your last comment "few thousand words on Wikipedia", was it in reference to my joke, that was intended to maintain a light tone, apologies. This is not about a program but an about an entry for an interaction model. Please note that I have asked a question about the interpretation of a journal article as independent. I feel that this is not a debate if comments are summited disingenuously, I feel this is inappropriate. Also drawing from Wikipedia's own notes, Notoriety is not about fame but significance, I quote downloads as a way of stating that users are using the software because the model works, if there were 0 or < 100 then I would not have a case, this adds an independently verifiable reference. The mention of a UK patent is not for expressing notoriety but to verify the model, you can't have a patent based on a model that does not work, hence this serves as an independent and secondary source.

Comment if you want to make this AfD disapear, just add some independent verifiable sources it is as simple as that. No independent sources, no article and yes a source written by the creator of the subject in question no matter how it is published should not count towards. You are right notability and fame are not directly connected but notability in the Wikipedia sense means that someone apart from the owner/creator/subject has taken note and written something from which we can source the information in an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why the tone of every comment I have received has been, off handed, overly critical, libelous and on the whole brash? Is it that Wikipedia is a perpetual fest for internet trolls? I mean come on give a guy a break I am trying to have a 'debate' here, I'm not trying to bark on just get a straight answer from ppl. I am questioning the interpretation of notability and I have received a response with " should not count" not " does not count" but should. It is absurd that the opinion of a number of experts in a field who elect that an article is worthy of publication, hence notability, should be discounted, when all I have to do to get the article in Wiki is find some other article were any lobotomized zombie could have referred to these publications. Patent nonsense. The fact that 'should' instead of 'does' indicates lack of certainty and therefore you must refer the query to someone who can provide an authoritative ruling, instead of childishly trying to test an honest persons patience by antagonizing them. This begs the question why should people attempt to contribute to such a community that is so prickly and downright unapproachable. There should be a mechanism to reprimand such childish behavior and reduce should negativity. So I am left with the opinion that Wikipedia encourages trollisness, which detracts from what it aspires to be, but then again what does it actually aspire to be? But then I note with a bit of a humor to say no hard feelings I Suppose it keeps ticket inspectors off the streets. Thank you for considering my submission to Wikipedia

You're missing the point. WP has some very clear guidelines about what makes an acceptable article. This debate will be closed in a few days by an experienced administrator who will weigh up the various points raised against those guidelines. This debate is not an appropriate forum for questioning the guidelines - there are such fora and you may wish to contribute your point of view to them.

During the debate some important points have been made about this article. If you don't like the way in which those points have been expressed that's unfortunate but it doesn't invalidate them.

You might want to review AfD etiquette which requests that contributors should be civil and avoid the use of sarcastic language. How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette explains important aspects of the process of which you may not be aware, including the relative weight given to the opinions of editors and this point in particular: "If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin."

So please don't feel antagonised. Simply fix the article by adding the references that will establish notability. Otherwise, on present showing, the article is almost certain to be deleted. andy 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you cannot expect anyone to accept that the comments I have received in this debate have been anything but 'off' There has not been any use of sarcastic language only constant attempts to lighten a tone that has been thoroughly discourteous. I agree strongly that there well may be many aspects that I am unaware of, but the whole theme of this debate has been one of impatience with an inexperienced contributor. Simply put there is an unnecessary lack of patience with newbies which is well not necessary and discourteous. I am sorry but seeming to accuse someone of plagiarism and then taking the moral high ground is exactly the issue I'm trying to raise here. As you say the comments made during this debate may still be valid but do they conform to Wikipedia etiquette policy? Thank you andy for clarifying these points but please note that I am inexperienced and I genuinely felt that the guidlines were misinterpreted. Instead of letting someone drone on why not clarify that these issuea should be debated elsewhere from the onset. My point is that the way this debate has been conducted, which includes yourself has been inappropriate and unhelpful. There is no reason why admin cant wear many hats, by being helpful, supportive, encouraging as well as ensuring policy is adhered to.

I am sorry that you found some of the responses to be discouteous. Please keep in mind that tone is very difficult to judge in writing. I don't think many of the comments from other editors were intended to be unfriendly, personally I have found Wikipedia a very friendly place. On a serious note you accused editors of libel, I am assuming in reference to the fact that it was pointed out that portions of this article were copied from the mouse gesture page, no one accused you of plagerism or said anything other than the truth so I don't see any evidence whatsoever of libel. Please try not to take anything from an AfD personally, it is a common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel first off please note that I apologize if I come over ruffled or insulted by you, this is not the case. I do respect your comments. Perhaps you are taking what I write the wrong way and are assuming I am barking when I was simply and light heartedly putting a point of view across.

The issue is not of having the article rejected, but simply the tone of this debate. Am I not insulted, I have only pointed out the way comments have been worded and presented, including your own postings, which perhaps were unnecessary. Perhaps you could have simply pointed me in the right direction.

I believe you cannot simply put "Large parts of the article are almost word-for-word copies of" without qualifying the comment. And, then obliquely qualify it is the work of the same editor after an eyebrow has been raised, especially given that it was glossed over that it was necessary that the parts should be the similar, and therefore not lacking in quality or effort. The wording of comments such as this are inappropriate on a public forum were it cannot be expected for the general reader to be well versed in WP procedure and operation.

I agree with you it is not clear if the statement is intended to be libelous and it wasn't actually taken as such, but that clearly shows a need for care to be taken when posting comments, and that care has not been taken. I have edited my comments accordingly. It should not be stated that "has added a spam link to the site from mouse gestures" without checking that the link is legitimate". Or to state, "It ought to be stated explictly that Cityzen451 is the J Hudson" which could be construed as an attempt at deception when it has already been clearly disclosed in many ways. My point is this has not been a debate at all just a process posting loaded opinionated comments. For example "common problem for new editors to create pages on themselves or their own creations and then be insulted when the community decides that the article fail to meet policy" is opinion, and dismisses my responses as bleating when all I am trying to do is clarify ambiguous and inaccurate comments.

Comments should be summited in such a way that they are perceived as they should be intended, so that there is no room for misconstruing them. Perhaps comments should not be patched over afterwards with "tone is very difficult to judge in writing". Comments should also be presented fairly and very even handedly. If an article were written in such a way it would be rejected because it were biased. I accept if by Wikipedia policy the content of the entry I propose is to be rejected. But there is no harm to try and clarify policy, however clumsily I may do it.

Suggestion

The contributors entry appears to be from research that he has contributed to. There is a conflict of interest - contributors should take particular care where there are clear COIs [Link]

It should be noted there are links to software products in the mouse gestures entry that are related to the author of this article.

The research does not appear to meet the criteria for notability [Link] to prove notability you should...

If you feel policy has been misinterpreted please note that this debate will be reviewed by someone who is more experienced and is well versed in WP policy. Issues of interpretation of policy are not handled in DfS, if you wish to read about and debate policy you could go to [link]

The entry is related to mouse gestures, the entries appear to overlap and cover similar issues. They are similarly worded.

though do note section in mouse gesture also contributed by author

Please consider the related independent references in the form of another product along with reviews, wholly unrelated to myself

http://www.iliumsoft.com/site/fp/inscribe.htm - floating translucent gesture keyboard

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inscribe+ilium&btnG=Search&hl=en - Google search for keyboard

Again thank you for taking the time to consider my submission.

Cityzen451: this is not a peer review process. It's a discussion. Have a look at some other AfDs here and you'll see how they're usually conducted. This is how WP works. Meanwhile you're not addressing the issue of whether your article should be kept according to WP's criteria. The links you've just given do not seems to relate to the notability issue - I can see no mention of "Watermark charm interaction". There are still no independent references within the article nor any other changes that relate to this AfD. andy 12:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Andrew, but note I have not treated this AfD as a peer review, I have been debating, the point I have continually made is that this AfD has not been conducted as a discussion or appropriately. Perhaps my last comment should have read, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments in this AfD.

The links show evidence of other products using the technique described, a technique that requires defining, and which has a recognized definition. The fact that it doesn't use the any of the terminology, only demonstrates it independence from the proposed WP contribution. It is still in use and it still remains that Watermark Charm interaction is the accepted terminology, since if anyone wanted to refer to it they would have to reference previous material. Surely, it is not necessary to have independent confirmation from specifically from and directly academic papers, if there is evidence from elsewhere. The existence of Inscribe demonstrates that this is not an idea but a technique in practical use. The fact that developers elsewhere have seen fit to implement the technique indicates notability and independent verifiability. The notability of the other articles I referenced are perhaps no longer relevant, since this could be interpreted that the notability of the technique/model is the issue not the term 'Watermark charm interaction'. At the least this is grounds to merge with the mouse gesture article, however I feel that would detract from its meaning. What is wrong with someone offering to take over the article and removing some of these issues of COI and notability anyway?

Perhaps it would be best to leave this to an administrator to decide, if you are only confident enough to comment that "this does not seem to be related to the notability issue"; then this is presenting a view as fact, in which case I respectfully dont see the purpose of it. Especially, given this debate is to be reviewed anyway. Note that I confirm that I am uncertain of my view and I have presented my argument in this debate as such.

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.