Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW-link

:{{la|DW-link}} ([{{fullurl:DW-link|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW-link}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is highly inaccurate. It should be deleted until revised. Edmundhall (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep I like your sense of humor "It should be deleted until revised." You can't fix it once it's deleted Antonio López ^(desu) 01:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:I disagree. I have talked to the engineer who designed this system, and we mutually agree that this page should not be kept public, unless it is corrected. Please delete this as I am responsible for the article, and I am unable to remove the article myself. Issues could arise involving patents and intellectual theft regarding this system, so it is a rather serious matter. Your cooperation would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. User:Edmundhall is not "responsible for the article", but he is responsible for the text he wrote. How can he now think that everything he wrote is "highly inaccurate"? If he wants it deleted because its publication might prejudice someone's Intellectual Property Rights, he should say so explicitly. Is he saying that his text should be removed as a copyright violation (he should go to WP:COPYVIO)? Or does he mean that Wikipedia might be committing "intellectual theft" (which would violate WP:NLT)? Groomtech (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No intellectual theft or copyright violation has occurred as I had permission from the patent holder to write this article. However, after having read this article, the patent holder is not satisfied with it, and would prefer that at the very minimum the Squat & Anti-squat and Consistent Anti-Squat & Virtual Pivot Points paragraphs be removed. On top of that, other details need to be corrected. If I am responsible for the text I wrote, why am I not allowed to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:Every contributor is responsible for the text they add, in the sense of vouching for it. They are not responsible for it in the sense of owning it. If you no longer wish some of the text to appear, then you can edit it out. Of course another contributor might choose to restore it, in which case they are now "responsible" in the sense of vouching for it. If there's disagreement over what text to include, the article talk page should be used to form a consensus.

:However, Wikipedia does not in general remove articles just because someone out there, even if connected with the topic, "isn't satisfied with it". (There are certain exceptions.)

:I'm disturbed to read that you got "permission from the patent holder" to write this article. Why would you need that? Is the text copyright of the patent holder? If so, Wikipedia cannot accept it at all without a release. Groomtech (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::This is getting a bit ridiculous. I was talking to the engineer who has patented this system, discussing the physics behind it with him, I asked him if he would be fine with me writing a wikipedia article about it. He was fine with it. None of the text I wrote is copied out of the patent, but the owner did suggest that as a remedy, which as you said, cannot be done. I think the engineer who invented, designed, and patented the suspension system is fairly qualified to determine whether this article is a "useful" addition to wikipedia. In it's current state it is incorrect, and will be misinforming people, there can be no argument about that. If I attempt to edit the article to remove in incorrect parts, It seems that any change will be reverted. So that won't work. Even if someone else is currently vouching for this article, it is still incorrect. Basically, I do not want to annoy the owner of the patent by ignoring the advice they give me regarding this article.

::As a general comment about wikipedia, I am unimpressed with my first (and what will be last) experience. At a glance it would appear that the moderators, are intent on keeping a good page growth rate, rather than ensuring concise, accurate information is presented in the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:::If you think the article is incorrect, make the corrections you think necessary and explain them at the article talk page. Ideally produce reliable sources to support your version. Blanking the whole page does not count as "correcting" it. The inventor's opinion as to whether Wikipedia should carry an article on his invention is not decisive: that decision belongs to the Wikipedia community. Groomtech (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

quote: "The inventor's opinion as to whether Wikipedia should carry an article on his invention is not decisive: that decision belongs to the Wikipedia community." If the inventor does not give permission for an article to be produced about his invention and patent, then his opinion "IS DECISIVE", If I am not corrected. Anyhow, disregarding petty arguments, I will edit the article as I see necessary to remove incorrect information. hopefully this article is not reverted to its original state, yet again.

As a side note, it is absolutely preposterous that you wikipedia moderators feel that you have more authority over this article than the inventor/patent holder. Surely this is a corruption of your policies if you believe the owner of the intellectual property has less authority over his invention than you, the wikipedia moderators. I can produce evidence of my statements about the inventor's statements, if necessary. You moderators are a joke. I don't care what your wikipedia policies state, the logic surrounding my argument is sound and clear, you are only ignoring my opinions with your authority to prolong the life of an completely inaccurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

:You mean community members, lots of people worked on this article (as stated above) and it's not owned by an individual. Patent holders should not even be editing the article due to conflict of interest. You say you don't care about policy, we say we do care about policy. Antonio López ^(desu) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Potential COI issue aside, unless we can ensure there is no WP:COPYVIO and there is no licensing question, it needs to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC){{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DW-link||}}

• Delete (see below) And start from scratch if anyone unaffiliated wants the article. Seems to be way to much conflict of interest and original research going on. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 06:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The innate fallacy in Mr. Hall's comment is obvious; one wonders if he likewise believes that the inventor can prevent the US Patent Office from commenting upon it, or technical or peer-review journals from mentioning it ... especially given a product that has been manufactured and sold for four years now. In any event, it is regrettable that he did not notice the sentences surrounding the "Save Page" link stating "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL" and "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" during multiple edits. Quite aside from that we cannot - as I'm sure he understands - act in credence with his unsupported assertion that he is in contact with the inventor, as with peer review and the US patent system, Wikipedia operates under certain policies and guidelines. These are not petty, they are time-tested and arrived upon through consensus and daily application, and we cannot ignore them or set them aside for no reason beyond that an editor finds them inconvenient. If Mr. Hall feels he cannot respect them or abide by them, I quite understand if he wishes nothing more to do with Wikipedia.  Ravenswing  06:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously there are COI problems but there is significant coverage of this system and as far as I'm concerned that makes it notable. If there are inaccuracies in the article, fix them! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Ravenswing and Panyd. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Merge - All the valid material is already covered by a section in the Bicycle suspension article. If that section ever gets too big, it can easily be broken out into a new article. That is not yet the case. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Probably AFD is not for merging either, but I was planning to suggest a merger if the delete didn't happen. Fences&Windows's post below gives me hope that we can just go straight to the merger. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep AFD is not cleanup. There is enough valid information here to justify its own article. If you see a problem with something, tag it, and discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. Wood for the trees - is this thingy even notable?!? Well, apparently, yes: "The Sunday's development was a close collaboration between the then-Mad Catz/Iron Horse team, suspension designer Dave Weagle, and Seplavy. Weagle's contribution was the now-legendary dw-link suspension system, which has seen global success and has since been patented and installed on bikes by several manufacturers."[http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=sabrina_jonnier_iron_horse07] But AndrewDressel wisely points out that there is a nice section in Bicycle suspension on this already, and it is better sourced than this article. Any useful info lacking there can be merged in. p.s. Edmundhall, we don't remove articles just because people associated with their subjects don't like them. DW-link is hardly a secret, and Dave Weagle has no rights over how it is written about by anyone, barring libel. Fences&Windows 01:52, 1 August 2009 (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.