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...
|
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)
The 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.
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)
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;"
KotetsuKat ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
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)
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...
|
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)
The 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.
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)
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;"
KotetsuKat ( talk) 19:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
---|---|
Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC) |
![]() |
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)