User talk:Brendanmarsh

Welcome!

Hello, Brendanmarsh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Myzerr, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Myzerr
A tag has been placed on Myzerr requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Codf1977 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
You asked for my comments; I hope to be useful and make some suggestions for improvement or next steps.

First of all -- I agree with Codf1977 that a really good way of getting the best input is by submitting the draft to the articles for creation process. That would be my first choice if I were you.

Second -- I had a look at every single one of the references in the draft, which is what someone giving consideration to the notability of the company would do in, say, an articles for deletion process. (Not that we're at that stage yet.) There are eight of them at the moment. #3 and #8 don't actually mention the topic and would not be considered useful in this article (you can merely link to another Wikipedia article to refer to another product). #7 would be discounted because it's something from the company's own website. #5 is, as near as I can tell, a word-for-word reproduction of the company's own press release and thus runs into the same problems as I mentioned before; a company's own press releases are not reliable sources. Which leaves us with nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6. All of these seem to be of the same type of source, an article on a website that gives information about new technology/websites, etc. Now, I have to say that I am not the best person to assess this type of website for reliability; it's definitely not my area of expertise or interest. I can say, though, that one of the things that *I* look for when trying to assess the reliability of a source is "Does the site exercise any expert editorial control in what it says?" For instance, if a site is reviewing (say) a novel, is the review contributed by an anonymous source or is it a well-known professional with some sort of book reviewing credential? Does the site make any claim to experience or expertise in this area? (I would rather read a book review on professionalbookreview.com than hotgeektopics.com, to invent an example.) One of the reasons that printed magazines like Forbes or Playboy are considered reliable sources is because all the published material is overseen by a professional editor who makes a professional judgment about whether the published material is "good" or not and excludes "bad" information. If anyone can contribute anything at any time, like IMDb or Wikipedia, then the site is not reliable. It seems to me that nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 are a little sketchy -- but, as I say, I'm not an expert in this area and would definitely defer to any colleague with specialized knowledge. I know Wired is reliable for opinions about websites like this; I know that a posting in a forum is not reliable. 1, 2, 4 and 6 fall somewhere in the middle and are beyond my ability to judge, but I guarantee that the subject of their reliability will be raised by people with more expertise than mine.

Another issue i felt I should raise is that the information in the draft seems to be "advertising-y"... there is no criticism of the site or the concepts that underlie it, or any suggestion that it's anything but wonderful. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy that pretty much insists that all coverage of topics has to be fair and balanced, as much as possible. I admit it might be hard to get such comments while the site is in beta and that says something in and of itself. It seems as though there has not been enough time for the site to demonstrate whether or not it is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of that term.

There also seems to be a lot of information that is already interesting to people who are intimately familiar with the site, but that don't strike me as being particularly encyclopedic. For this sort of thing, what I mean is that if someone is interested in the details of how the site does what it does in granular detail, they can easily go to the site and find out. It may well be that the best length for an article like this is what's called a "stub" -- a couple of short paragraphs that give the very basic details of what the site is and what it's intended to do. When you try to compare the site to, say, Ning.com, you raise all kinds of questions about who made that comparison and upon what basis. That's the sort of opinion based material that does get deleted quickly, so you might be prepared for that to happen. Again, I'm not suggesting that the comparisons, etc., are untrue; simply that you cannot prove that an arm's-length, third-party expert source of opinion thinks that they are true. With Wikipedia, it's not necessarily what is true that gets to stay, it's only what can be proven. I can say that Angelina Jolie has a smokin' hot body, but unless I can cite an expert source that says so, it's pretty much just my opinion, even though nearly every heterosexual male in the world would agree with it in a flash.

What I frequently recommend to people creating articles who are inexperienced is that they accumulate whatever reliable sources they have and create an article that is, as much as humanly possible, entirely composed of quotations from those reliable sources. (Except for things that are an uncontroverted matter of public record, like the street addresses of the company's offices.) Every adverb, every adjective, should be a quotation. If you say the site is X, Y and Z, I would expect there to be three references attached to that sentence. That way, you eliminate as much opinion and non-neutral point of view material as is feasible and everything that is in the article, no matter how brief the article is, is pretty much bulletproof. I sense that you would have a problem with this approach because I strongly suspect that you won't have enough reliable sources to say more than a couple of sentences. Again, this might be the best you can do at the moment (and it is entirely possible that it won't be possible to have an article at this time, until the site is commented upon by those reliable sources). It might be best to hold off on creating an article until you can get some reliable sources together, after the site goes into a more public form. I would also be looking to see if there were citations from a wide geographical area. A bunch of local newspaper articles about various shopping malls in Sydney AU getting on board with the concept probably won't cut it -- the kind of geography I mean is newspapers/reviews/magazines that span a quarter of the Australian continent PLUS one or two from North America and/or Europe.

One thing that is always a good idea is to get a really clear idea of what the definitions of Wikipedia's terminology are. To that end, I'd suggest tracing every link in my note and reading the article that's attached to it; this is all basic, basic stuff here but people frequently get tripped up (and frustrated) for not knowing it. When you've looked at your article with these comments in mind and made whatever changes you think are appropriate, my next step would be to go directly to WP:AfC; as I've said above, my expertise is limited and I cannot give you the best advice about the reliability of sources. So, although I would be happy to look at the article again, it probably won't be of much more help to you; you need to expose this to a wider audience of Wikipedia editors before going much further.

I hope this has been of some assistance to you. Don't hesitate to get in touch if I can give you any more background on Wikipedia policy or if you need any information. Best of luck with this and your future contributions. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia& was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myzerr concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Myzerr, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Myzerr


Hello Brendanmarsh. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Myzerr.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)