User talk:Targeted

February 2008[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pythomnic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Pythomnic and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. BrucePodger (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of article[edit]

The criteria used for deletion may not have been 100% accurate, but it could also have been deleted based on the lack of an assertion of notability - i.e. you did not describe why the subject of the article warrants an article. Typically, products which are not widely known/used within their field are not considered notable enough to warrant an article. This is related to the difficulty of procuring secondary sources on obscure subjects. Perhaps you can provide news articles or other references for your article, and include an assertion of notability in the introduction? You might want to read the policies I'll link here - WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, WP:Reliable source and WP:Conflict of interest. Avruch^T 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the article was such that it sounded more like advertising or marketting material than neutral, unbiased encyclopedia material. That you say above that this is software you are currently developing yourself would seem to confirm this. An example of a specific thing that rang alarm bells would be the articles obvious bias: entirely positive comments about the subject, entirely negative about all alternatives.

Articles about software, and other products, should be about those that already have a degree of interest through existing success, not a means of promoting the product. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Hi Targeted, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Avruch Good luck, and have fun. --Avruch^T 18:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Advertising in articles[edit]

The key issues with regard to teh deletion of the article were:

The tone of the article was more suited to ad-copy or press release than to an encyclopedia article. The article was a bare list of features and benefits for a potential customer, which is what makes it advertising. It read like the text from a company produced brochure, and not of a neutral encyclopedia article (see WP:NPOV and WP:COI).
The article was entirely unreferenced and showed no significant independant third-party references. See WP:RS,, WP:CITE, WP:IS; the key is that an article needs to show that the information in the article comes from a source outside of wikipedia and outside of the subject that it covers.
A good idea is to find good Wikipedia articles about similar subjects, and write in the same tone, and use the same sorts of references that THOSE articles use. For example, Macintosh, an article about a product, is actually a featured article. I wouldn't suggest that the article need to be that long, or that detailed, but it will give you an idea on what the ideal tone of a good article is and what sorts of independent references are needed to write one. If you would like, you can create a "draft" version of the article in your own "userspace" as a subpage. The description for how to do that is in WP:SUBPAGE and WP:USERPAGE. Users are generally given a lot of leeway to creating and working on articles in their userspace, and it allows you time to work out the kinks before taking the article "live" in the main article space. If you have any questions or need any help, or want me to review or help out with a draft version of any article, let me know! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]