KotetsuKat
Welcome
edit
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:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Pervasive Data Integrator
edit
A tag has been placed on Pervasive Data Integrator, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Pervasive Data Integrator (sigh)
editThe most recent incarnation of this article was speedily deleted as a recreation of an article that had already been deleted once, and quite recently too, after a discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pervasive Data Integrator. I nominated the most recent version for deletion, but did not delete it myself. According to the log, the administrator who actually deleted it was User:SchuminWeb
There is a notability essay on software and a notability guideline for businesses and products that you may want to read. Very simply, IT and tech industry blogs and websites have too limited and specialized a readership to be considered "general interest" publications; they have "limited interest and circulation" and are considered like local newspapers - they don't really confer notability. Press releases, similarly, do not confer notability simply by being picked up by other publications, and blogs generally are self-published and not always reliable sources either. Really, coverage outside the industry or market is what is needed.
These people seem very determined to promote this particular software on Wikipedia. There are two things you could try at this stage.
- You could seek reversal of the two deletion decisions at deletion review. The steps are listed on the page.
- You could try to rewrite a version of the deleted article in your own user space or on a subpage, say at User:KotetsuKat/Pervasive Data Integrator, and see if you can find general interest sources that will pass muster, and ask for another look before having that moved to main space. I would be happy to provide you with copies of the two deleted texts.
I do try to be relatively even handed about these things. While "other stuff exists" is not a particularly convincing argument. When I find the time, I will have a look at the other competing software you mentioned. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! Please, don't take my comment that other similar articles exist as a request to delete them as well. I use those articles. I can see where they would be less interesting to some, but they're very useful to me, and I really don't want to see them go away. I was trying to fill a sudden gap in information, not get rid of a whole swath of it.
Systems integration is a bit like UNIX operating systems, or any other specialized area. You're not likely to see a lot of coverage on ABC news of a new UNIX shell, but it would certainly get a lot of buzz from folks who care about that, and I would think that a wikipedia article on it would be reasonable. Similarly, the folks that are interested in integration generally know about Data Integrator or it's old version Data Junction. Having it left out just doesn't seem right. I noticed some other gaps, like Scribe, but filling them seems like a bad idea if I'm not doing it right.
Sorry for bugging you when it's not your responsibility. I saw your name on the comment on my user page, and thought I was contacting the right person.
I would be willing to have you send me the old articles, and take a shot at making them acceptable, but I'm not sure what to change. My point with bringing up the other similar articles is just that articles about integration software in general seem to be okay. The problem with this one, I thought, was that it lacked independent references, so I added them. But now, you're saying that those references aren't right? Blog posts by respected independent third-parties seemed to be acceptable as references for other subjects. I was fairly certain that magazine articles would be acceptable. I understand that press releases by the company can't be referenced, no matter how many news outlets pick them up. You've already said that industry analyst coverage isn't acceptable, at least by itself, in the deletion discussion page. At this point, I'm not really sure what you would consider evidence of notability. Does it have to be in a printed book? Does it need to be on Oprah? Just kidding.
Seriously, could you give me an example? I'm still learning. I know I've used blog posts, magazine articles, etc. as references in other articles, and seen other people use them. This is only my second article that I created. My first one almost got deleted because I messed up the references. What I learned from that, I thought, was that generally references had to be from an external source, not created by the people or company or whatever in the article, and the more different sources, the better the evidence of notability. Data Integrator's been around for like 20 years and covered/discussed, etc. by bunches of people, so I thought it would be pretty straightforward. Am I way off here? --KotetsuKat (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Dealing with the spam issue does in fact "interest" me, else I wouldn't have bothered; and it's true that I did start this particular process.
- I have placed both versions of the article at User:KotetsuKat/Pervasive Data Integrator for your use, if you want to try to edit them further.
- You do seem to be saying that these products do have some kind of technical or historic significance - being twenty years old and all. I didn't pick up on any of that in either of those prior versions. If you could find reliable sources that say so, it would help. Without that, I'm afraid all I'm going to see is, "yet more obscure enterprise software that only IT people will have heard of, that thinks it rates an encyclopedia article".
- If you can convince me, your article can almost certainly pass muster, because I am a hard person to please when it comes to stuff like this. You'll need my or another admin's help if you can create something that works, because the page has currently been "salted", or protected against re-creation because of the perception of persistent spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I get what you mean. I went back and reread the article on software notability. I'm an IT person, so it's notable to me, but IT folks don't count in this case, unless the software shows historical or technical significance. These two sections seem the most relevant: "Historical or technical significance means that software verifiably has:
introduced an important technical innovation; or has been recognized as significant in the development of a sector" and "It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable general interest, independent secondary sources; It has won a recognized award that is reported in multiple general interest sources; It has been the subject of significant product reviews circulated in general interest sources;"
- That's certainly true in this case, but I can see where the article doesn't show it. The one I wrote is just a straightforward, this is what it is, this is what it does, this is who uses it, this is what it's used for, this is the platforms that it works on kind of thing. In fact, I'm not really sure the kind of information needed to show notability should be in the article on the software itself. Things like awards, and technical innovations, and multiple product reviews and such strike me as a lot like the kind of thing I wouldn't want to see in a software article here. It seems sort of fluffy. Like what I would see on someone's website.
- Would it be acceptable to leave the article fairly bare bones, just the facts about the software itself, and put notability information on the talk page associated with it? Or, would it be better to add a section on History or Technical Impact or something like that to the article itself?
- This conversation has given me an idea, by the way. The technical history of integration software in general, from the prevalence in the old days of hand coding everything, to the modern landscape with all these competing tools out there, with bits on the technical innovations and milestones along the way might be a really cool article. That could be a lot of fun to write. Would take a fair amount of research, though, and trying to find web sources from 10 years ago, much less 20, is a serious task. I'd be willing to tackle that if it would be a useful addition. I could learn a lot doing the research for that. Something like, the History of Integration Technology. Does that sound like a useful article to write? It would probably just be of interest to IT folks like me, but would certainly match the historical significance requirement.
| Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
|---|---|
 |
|
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
edit
|
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here! |
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)