User talk:Jkelner2009/Swype Inc.

Claim to Notability

This article currently makes no claim to notability. I appreciate that it's under construction, but at some point there has to be some demonstration of why this warrants inclusion in an encyclopaedia, otherwise it will be deleted under the A7 criterion. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I have just started to piece the article together, I am working on citing the information and making sure the article is up to Wikipedia's standards. This is my first article and coincidentally for a college course. Please give me a little leeway and time to get this done. Also, if you reference the Swype article, it does not take a position either, I am creating this article to provide information on the parent company and designers of Swype text input technology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkelner2009 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 28 April 2010

One of the really critical standards is that any topic must be notable. If it isn't (or at least if the article doesn't say why/how it is), it doesn't matter how well-written and complete the article is, it's not viable at all. WP:CORP is a good guide to this idea of "notability" for a company. If the company is notable, it's critical that that gets included ASAP, or the article will be deleted very shortly--that's your best use of time right now. If it's not, then no sense essentially wasting time neatening up something that's a lost cause. A specific product can be notable even if the company that produces it isn't, or vice versa. Notability must be specific for the specific topic of the article ("the company" vs "the product"), not just by association. Otherwise we would only have one article that covers the viable topic, with just a small mention of the associated entity. Wikipedia isn't a catalog with entries for everything. DMacks (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The company manufactures a piece of software that allows people to input text on mobile devices faster than ever before, it is truly revolutionary. The company holds a guiness world record for text input speed on a mobile device... how is that not notable? If I was given more than an hour to compile everything I could cite that information to backup my claims in the article, however not even an hour after I started working on it a motion was made to have the article on the fast track for deletion even though I CLEARLY stated I would be working on the article for quite some time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkelner2009 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 April 2010

(edit conflict)How about this. I'm afraid the article as it currently stands should probably be deleted under A7. Even with the world record, that's about the product, not the company. With DMacks permission (since your the admin who would probably end up dealing with this anyway), I'll move this article to Jkelner2009's userspace where he/she can work on it. I'll assist Jkelner2009 in writing it, and make sure it meets WP:N and the other relevant policies. How does that sound? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. DMacks (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll get it done. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)