Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/SpiderGraph chart/Deletion Discussions continued Gregory L. Chester 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Author Rebutle Responses (continued)

ATTN.: Well-rested - I wish that I could say that I was well-rested, but everyday I'm faced with some new, well-meaning, but non-technical REs that haven't read the articles in question or even this discussion, but who make many incorrect assumptions & accusations that require "walls of text" to clarify or disprove! Then there are the WikiTrolls, that just don't care, it's a power-play with them, like the RE Mabdul, commenting above! Which class are you in?

Making a comment like "Delete or merge with radar chart" tells me right away that you haven't read either article or you would have known that the SG is not a variant of the Radar chart!!! Also proving that YOU ARE NO STATISTICIAN either!! The SpiderGraph chart article uses an "impartial comparison" (w/o any COI) to stress the differences between the two charts. SG also uses NO computer, so calculations and decisions can be made "directly" from the chart. Unfortunately, that can't be said about the Radar chart, which uses a computer & Excel software that uses geometry to construct the chart patterns, to make "estimations from," that therefore causes about 2 dozen Limitations, that I cited in a section called "Six (6) Comments" in the SG article, that Mabdul deleted! He also deleted another section of "3 articles dealing with decision-making," which "he didn't see the Value Of, so he deleted them." However, he reinstated them, after I explained that the articles were about the SpiderGraph charting method "for making Trade-off Decisions!"

If you would have taken the time to read this discussion before commenting, you would have noted WP:NOT#DICT mentioned, which also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the SG chart article is exactly the type of article that Wikipedia is looking for! Also, "being famous is not a requirement for being Notable," however if you would have read the SG chart article, you could have also noted that the SG article is included in the Standard Handbook of Industrial Automation, found in the Library of Congress!

As an aside, "Contr. Engr." stands for Control Engineering Magazine and I can email you copies of the articles, if you're really interested. Wikipedia doesn't incorporate any way to do that! Oh, yes, if you really want shorter "walls of text," read that articles first, it cuts down on alot of un-informed questions & silly statements! Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Chester 00:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregLChest (talk • contribs)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I'm not sure I'm making this continuation page properly! Gregory L. Chester 00:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "continuation page;" as WP doesn't really have any such thing. The deletion discussion itself appears to have ended.

If you want the article deletion reviewed, you're looking for WP:Deletion review—but be sure that you read the What is this page for? section carefully, first. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]