User talk:Timgriesbach
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
[edit]
|
Hi Timgriesbach! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
The article GrafShare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- non-notable software. Nothing beyond press releases and very minor routine coverage.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Recent edits to List of collaborative software
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to List of collaborative software appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you! — Rhododendrites talk | 20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you can help me out. I had creeated a page for my company called grafShare but it was "speed deleted" - seems somewhat draconian. It was a simple page describing our software. So if we are not allowed to do this, then how are supposed to have a "notable" reference for pages like this. The collaborative software page is talking about software that enables collaboration, which grafShare does very well and was designed for this. Timgriesbach (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- First, you need to be extremely careful editing where you have a conflict of interest.
- If there is press on the product from independent and reliable sources, then it should be easy to establish notability. --Ronz (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good to see you saw my reply, was not sure if you would (you can delete my comments on your talk page). So if there is no press (other than PR we have done), but there is a live site and even live application (you can signup and use it if you want) - what more is required? Timgriesbach (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- (Rhododendrites has replied on his talk page. I'm a different editor that noticed your editing)
- Without proper sources, it simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia, per the comments from Rhododendrites and per WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, interesting how efficient folks are on wikipedia to reply! If advertising is the concern, seems then ALL corp pages on wikipedia should be banned and only allow for links to their sites - since all corp pages are basically an advertisement (why else have it). Otherwise it's getting into shades of grey about how "notable" a topic is. Timgriesbach (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- What we try to do is prevent promotion and advertising by making sure article topics are notable and presented in a neutral manner. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Understand the goal, but by nature it seems hard to argue that any corp page is not inherently "advertising" as the sole purpose/value of the company creating and maintaining the page is for awareness & visibility to generate revenue - that's called advertising. Of course if there is true historical value, that's different. If this is the concern of wikipedia, then why not disallow all or offer a "for-pay" so it's clear to all viewers its a sponsored page. Today the rules basically prevent upstarts from being included in research that folks regularly rely on wikipedia to provide. Timgriesbach (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- What we try to do is prevent promotion and advertising by making sure article topics are notable and presented in a neutral manner. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, interesting how efficient folks are on wikipedia to reply! If advertising is the concern, seems then ALL corp pages on wikipedia should be banned and only allow for links to their sites - since all corp pages are basically an advertisement (why else have it). Otherwise it's getting into shades of grey about how "notable" a topic is. Timgriesbach (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good to see you saw my reply, was not sure if you would (you can delete my comments on your talk page). So if there is no press (other than PR we have done), but there is a live site and even live application (you can signup and use it if you want) - what more is required? Timgriesbach (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)