User talk:AngeloCoppola

Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not use advertising in articles. For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

OnTime
I am attempting to publish an entry for OnTime that fits within Wikipedia guidelines. The article is being deleted as "blatant advertisements" for the product. But, they are not, as far as I can tell. Below, is the content of the article, which is based on verifiable facts, lacking embellishing "marketing" language.

OnTime is more widely used than other similar products that have Wikipedia articles. When comparing the OnTime article I am attempting to publish with already-published articles of similar products, I'm not finding a discernable difference that makes the OnTime article blatant advertising (whereas the others are not). Please see, FogBugz and/or JIRA (software) and/or Track+.

Thank you so much for any help! Here is the raw content (without formatting or active links).

OnTime is a proprietary bug tracking system and the flagship product of Axosoft. Originally released and designed as a bugtracking application, it now contains and advertises software development project management functionality. OnTime was first released in 2002 by its original designer and developer, Hamid Shojaee.

OnTime requires a front end running any or all of the following: Windows operating system, Visual Studio .NET, or a computer capable of running Firefox or Internet Explorer. On the back end, OnTime requires a Microsoft SQL server.

Some of the application’s features include: tracking bugs, tasks, and features; unlimited and configurable; workflow and security templates; POP email conversation threading; project dashboard; custom reporting; and it integrates with several third-party source code management systems (see Comparison of issue tracking systems).

OnTime is developed with C sharp.

See Also Axosoft Hamid Shojaee Bugtracking Comparison of issue tracking systems

External Links Axosoft Official Homepage

software-stub

Category:Project management software


 * See WP:SOFTWARE for the notability guidelines for software. If it isn't notable, it's going to get deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been deleted 4 times by three different administrators and been the subject of an AfD. "Axosoft OnTime only gets 170 distinct ghits  It doesn't appear to be a notable product. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OnTime is Notable
OnTime seems to pass the test for notability. It was reviewed in ASP.NET Pro Magazine, and it won their 2006 Reader's Choice, Best Project Management and Defect Tracking Software of the Year Award.

OnTime also won the 2004 "Jolt Productivity Award for Outstanding Software in Defect Tracking Category" (Software Development Magazine).

Both awards were accompanied by follow up articles that mentioned OnTime.

Steve Bass has mentioned and reviewed OnTime in his article for PC World (example).

An article was written in the Arizona Republic on 3/1/2006 about Axosoft's blogosphere experiment with OnTime. The product gained widespread notoriety in 2006 when Axosoft tried a social marketing experiment with the help of A-list blogger, Robert Scoble. Over 2,500 people purchased the product in 3 days and over $14,000 was raised for the American Red Cross. Thousands of articles have been written about this in the blogosphere. It was also highlighted on Reddit.com and Memeorandum.com in addition to the Arizona Republic.

OnTime is being highlighted in an upcoming video segment on Podtech.net.

Other indications of notoriety:

Axosoft also claims that it has a user base of 50,000+. They publish a Google map of about 10% of their users worldwide here. They are in over 40 nations world wide, with version in Japanese, Spanish, French, German and English.

They also have a large, but unknown, number of single-users, who can download the software free.

The Axosoft web site has a pagerank of 6.

OnTime seems to pass both the notoriety guidelines as well as the blatant advertising guidelines. Is there a process for showing this and gaining permission to publish the article?

Thank you for your time and expertise.

Notability
I believe each time the article has been deleted it's been because of "blatant" advertising, which I think I've showed above to be false, as only factual information is used and the article mirrors the content of articles for similar commercial products.

I've also showed above that OnTime meets Wikipedia's own proposed guidelines for software notability WP:SOFTWARE, which requires only one criteria to be met. OnTime has been the subject of magazine and newspaper articles, with bylines. These articles have been reviews, editor awards, reader's choice awards, and about a blogosphere experiment where OnTime was the central object of the story.

Most recently, it appears I'm being told that the number of unique Google hits is an additional criteria:

"Axosoft OnTime only gets 170 distinct ghits  It doesn't appear to be a notable product."

It's arguable whether this method has any merit, but nonetheless, compare "Axosoft OnTime"s 170 distinct hits with these:


 * FogBugz Distinct Google Hits=34
 * JIRA (software) Distinct Google Hits=17

I believe the Administrators who have removed the OnTime article have made a mistake, and Wikipedia users interested in researching bug tracking software are not served well by excluding this software, which is important in this space and more widely known than other products with existing articles. AngeloCoppola


 * 170 distinct ghits is really not much. Usually companies are considered notable if ghits go into the thousands...-- Hús  ö  nd  21:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ===DEMONSTRATED NOTABILITY===
 * Consider this:
 * "IBM Rational ClearQuest" = 177 Distinct ghits


 * That's the number 1 commercial bug tracking application in terms of sales. "Axosoft OnTime" is also known as "OnTime 2006."  That term provides it with an additional 180 ghits.


 * Surely, Wikipedia Admins would agree that 34 & 17 are far fewer ghits than 180...I've pointed to two very similar products that are listed anyway (above). Ghits didn't seem to be part of the guidelines being considered...


 * However, the guidelines did say, "Software is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:  1. The software package has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself."


 * Again, I've showed that this is indeed the case for OnTime. It has also won Editors Choice and _People's_ Choice awards for Best Bug Tracking Application in two separate publications and it's been the subject of full length articles with bylines.


 * The guidelines are pretty clear, but there seems to be a moving goal post for providing Wikipedia researchers with an article about this software. It seems clear to me the administrators who deleted the article are mistaken.  Is there a way to appeal to a higher level?


 * AngeloCoppola


 * Deleting an article is not an arbitrary decision by administrators. A discussion for the deletion is created and any user may participate. If your article was nominated for deletion, and was effectively deleted following consensus, then it is almost certain that it fails the criteria established per WP:WEB, WP:CORP, etc. It is true that an article is considered notable if it has been "subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself", but even these sources have to be analysed before asserting the notability. The ultimate proof of notability is often the number of results rendered by Google, Yahoo, etc.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you give me a link to the (deleted) article and/or AfD (Article for Deletion) discussion I may have a deeper look into it.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so invested in this particular article, Angelo? Why not go and edit something unrelated for a while and come back to it later? Fixating on it like this only strengthens the perception that you are trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE TO SUGGESTIONS
 * Husond, I'm relatively new to Wikipedia. Thank you for the links to these guides.  I think what I'd like to do is carefully re-frame the content into a new article that actually cites the references and incorporates everything else I've learned in the last few days.  Citing references seems to be a "best practice" based on what these guides have to say.


 * Sarah, any "investment" or "fixation" is fantasy on your part, or "perception" as you call it. I don't particularly care whether the OnTime article is published.  I'm more interested, at this point, in learning how Wikipedia works first-hand.  It seems to have guidelines in place so that articles can be examined objectively, rather than by the whims of admins.  I would actually like to participate by writing and editing articles on other topics that I can contribute to, but before spending time on that I'd rather be sure that if an article is fact-based, written neutrally, and meets the guidelines for publication that the articles actually get published or edited...I don't want to waste my time.  I do appreciate your input and the input of others who have participated in this conversation for helping with my learning curve.


 * I can't find anything that indicates it's a bad idea to try to republish a (different) article on the same topic if there have been previous deletions. Before I attempt to publish again, attempting to create the best possible article for a commericial bug tracking app, taking into consideration all of this input...would this be bad form or is it looked upon as a positive thing?  Neither?


 * The helpme tag is for getting help with basic editing, and is unfortunately unsuited for getting responses from specific people. Please use their user talk pages to communicate with them. As for recreating once-deleted articles, if an article has been deleted, it is generally unwise to post the same content again. In case of articles deleted through AFD, in particular, they will be deleted immediately. You may like to create a new article from scratch, taking care of the reasons why the article was deleted in the first place. If these are not remedied, chances are, it will be deleted again. I hope this helps. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 18:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Axosoft Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Axosoft Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Axosoft Logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Axosoft Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OnTime2006 Box Logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:OnTime2006 Box Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:OnTime2006 Pro.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:OnTime2006 Pro.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)