User talk:Mzaremba

November 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Seekda. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Sting_au Talk 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Seekda. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Tagging due to users removal of deletion notice and recreation of deleted page. Sting_au Talk 21:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

If you wish Seekda to remain a page on wikipedia, please review WP:CORP, the notability guidelines for corporations. Also review WP:RS, our reliable sources guidelines. It is not enough to assert that a company is notable, you must demonstrate it using reliable sources. This is how the page is retained on wikipedia. You can't just say it's notable and expect us to believe you, demonstrate it. Unsourced assertions of notability are enough to get speedy deletion delayed, but will not help in actual AFD debates. I didn't bother to read your long post on the AFD page, the complete lack of sources on the page itself was far more convincing that the page should be deleted. WLU (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the only reply you will get. Dumping large amounts of text on to talk pages and AFD pages are a waste of your time, and everyone who has to read it. Personally, I didn't bother reading it, I just deleted it. All that matters is that the page passes (or does not) WP:CORP. Your assertion isn't a reliable source, document how it passes notability using reliable, independent sources. If you add independent sources which clearly demonstrate the company does pass WP:CORP, I will re-visit the debate and change my vote. THAT is the only thing which will change my opinion from delete to keep. Please familiarize yourself with WP:AFD before bothering me again. WLU (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massive infodump[edit]

Regards this:

I've already pointed out WP:WAX. What other pages have or do is irrelevant. Feel free to nominate them for deletion.
STI appears to be a parent organization, meaning it's essentially a press release, meaning it's not independent coverage. It's not a secondary source, it's a company web page. Are there newspaper articles? Technical, trade, business or scientific journals that mention Seekda?
If Seekda is so new it hasn't had time to garner attention in the media or business magazines, it's probably not notable yet. It means that right now it should be deleted, though if it eventually does get some coverage, then it can be re-created.
Attempting to use 'keywords and names' to establish notability for Seekda is WP:OR. If the individuals involved are notable, they could have a wikipedia page if they pass WP:BIO and conform with WP:BLP. Seekda could be mentioned in that page.
You aren't getting constructive support because you do not appear to understand or thoroughly read the policies being cited.

Point four is constructive advice on how Seekda could be mentioned by piggybacking on another article. Be careful to avoid looking like spam. Here is some more constructive advice:

Thoroughly read WP:5P, WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. WP:AFD, WP:WMD and Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! may also be useful. Good, long-term editing of wikipedia takes a moderate investment of time to become familiar with the major policies.
Compile reliable sources on Seekda which do not require a synthesis of original research to support the notability of the page. I suggest using a sub page to do so. Once you think the page has passed WP:CORP, ask one, or several, admins or experienced editors (here's a list) to review the page and ask for suggestions or if it is eligible for a move to a mainspace page. Don't attempt to link the page to mainspace articles, that'll piss people off.
You are actually getting a pretty reasonable and patient hearing, considering you've recreated the same page what, four times? Some people have been blocked for that. I'm guessing that it's because you appear to be sincere in your efforts to add to wikipedia, but you're not succeeding because your actions are contrary to the community's interpretation of the various policies involved. Deletion is not permanent. If the page passes WP:CORP at any time (and all it would really take is significant coverage in a major newspaper or trade publication, not even an English one), then re-create it. Right now there's no evidence that anyone other than STI has noticed Seekda as doing something worthwhile.
Edit other pages. Hit the random page button. Look for improvements to make in areas you are familiar with. Find a random page missing sources (here is a list of, basically, all of them). Get more experience, then you'll see why your page was (or was at risk of) deletion. You'll build a stronger page and understand things better. And by all means, if you see other corporation pages that appear to fail WP:CORP, nominate them for deletion (WP:AFD). Or, do a google search for references and improve the page so it passes WP:CORP.
Please stop dumping massive amounts of text on the AFD page. You're making the admins' job harder, and wasting time (yours included). Look for sources and improve the page. Sources must explicitly mention Seekda the company, must be independent, and must feature extensive coverage (more than a single line; alternatively, a sufficient number of independent sources mentioning seekda in passing may be sufficient to pass WP:CORP). I reply to your massive dumps of information to show they've been read, and why they don't help the page. When I start to repeat myself, I start to get annoyed. However, given your apparent sincerity, I'm trying a different approach.

WLU (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Mzaremba, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! WLU (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter[edit]

My opinion on DF is completely independent of Seekda. In fact, if either one passed notability, it would solve many of 'your' problems regards the pages (your, because you're the main person arguing against deletion) 'cause you could merge the non-notable article into a section in the notable other. The two are independent, based on the evidence I've seen I don't think Seekda passes WP:CORP or WP:N, and Dieter doesn't seem to pass WP:PROF, WP:N or WP:BIO.

When referencing, particularly for notability, you should always reference the most independent source available. Once a subject is determined as notable, then you can add links to sites they control (i.e. blogs, CVs, etc). Sources that are under the control of the subject are irrelevant for justifying notability - imagine if I had a blog and put on it 'Is the king of France and can bend train tracks with the force of his mind alone'. Both of these make me notable, but since there's no third-party verification, they can't be used to justify my notability.

Also, many people organize many conferences throughout the world - organizing one, or a hundred isn't necessarily enough to make someone notable. The WP:N guidelines contain the in-depth information on how something passes WP:N, that should be your primary reference. Until you are familiar with the policies and guidelines, I can't really help, or even argue with you. It's not a matter of how many conferences Dieter has arranged, it's wether organizing one, or several conferences is enough to make him notable. I would say no. I'm not taking it to AFD yet, possibly never, but if you can help the page pass WP:N, BIO or PROF, then you wouldn't have to worry about it. Please review the policies and argue from there. WLU (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Raw google results are never sufficient to establish notability, plus all you've done is found all mentions of Fensel on google scholar. How many are to Dieter? How many 'Dieter Fensel's are there writing scholarly papers? How many publications is 'enough' to settle notability? In the humanities, one really good book would be enough, but in computer science or biology, that's a laughable amount. You could try bringing him up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) to look for more help or guidance on this matter - WP:PROF is a terrible guideline in my mind, just because it's so vague. Also consider - did Dieter invent the field? Is his research revolutionary? Essentially, what makes him stand out from all the other academics publishing in his field? That's the question you need to answer conclusively, though in academics it's a hard one. He can also be notable by standing out from comparable businessmen, or if he lit his gay lover on fire then ate him, he'd also be notable (I don't know if he's actually a homosexual or prone to cannibalism, I'm trying to make the point that notability can be for a variety of things). B.F. Skinner is a notable academic, but also a notable author, a notable person, has written notable books and so forth. Notability is all about standing out for doing something that your (or in this case Dieter's) peers have not. Most of the notable 'academics', I don't consider to be notable for their academic work, it's something else - Dawkins and Gould for their stances on creationism, Hawking for his publicization of other things, and so forth. If I search for my own name on Google I get 750 000 hits, but only like, 6 are actually about me. Raw google results are not really helpful. Keep trying if you'd like, and I'll keep trying to answer your questions. WLU (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other advice I can give you is bring this up on a couple talk pages - WP:PROF, WP:N, and Talk:Semantic Web. If Dieter is truly as big as you say, people in the know just haven't realized he's got a page and will come flocking to his defense. I usually stay out of WP:PROF AFDs just because I don't find the guidelines clear and it is a very discipline-specific notability. There's a fine line between solicitation and asking for clarity, and you're treading it, but since Dieter is not up for deletion, that page should be OK. Also, just because they're not notable now, doesn't mean the will never be so. If Dieter ever gives a long interview with Forbes Magazine or Wired, that's notability. If both get deleted, re-create them when you've got reliable sources. WLU (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:WLU, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. WLU (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Hi,

Though you're entitled to simply delete posts on your talk page, generally it is preferable to archive (a lot of vandal users simply delete in order to wipe out warnings and some experienced editors see a simple wipe as a sign of a vandal). It's your call, if you would rather archive and would like some help, I'm at your disposal. Congrats on Seekda passing the AFD by the way, obviously no consensus isn't as good as a keep, but it means you can keep working on the page. WLU (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Mzaremba (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Seekda for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seekda is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seekda (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]