User talk:Datamonitor~enwiki

Datamonitor
Hi Jenny, thanks for taking the time to leave a message on my talk page about the Datamonitor article. I am indeed the admin who deleted this article. I did this was because I do not believe the article has an "assertion of notability". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its primary purpose is to gather and summarize information that has been reported elsewhere. A core part of Wikipedia's policies is the notion of verifiability - we only work from reliable, independent sources that report on a subject. So for example, a person is not included in Wikipedia until a newspaper or similar source has reported on them. Just being a worthy person isn't enough to warrant an article. Once you have risen to the level of fame where you are notable enough to be reported on, then we can include an article about you.

The same is true of companies. In this case I couldn't find anywhere in the article where you made a claim that Datamonitor had reached an appropriate level of notability. We have a specific guideline for companies that we use, you can read it here. If you believe that Datamonitor does in fact qualify under any of the Criteria for companies and corporations from the guidelines then please let me know, along with some evidence, and I will undelete the article for you.

Good luck, and welcome to Wikipedia, Gwernol 14:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jenny. I have undeleted the Datamonitor article for you. However I have also edited it for a couple of reasons. First the text was a direct copy from your website which is likely a copyright violation. At the least by putting your text on Wikipedia you have licensed it under the GFDL which means you have effectively relinquished most claims to copyright ownership that you may have had. Second it read like an advert for your company and was inappropriate for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotional material for any company, and the text of the article was particularly full of promotional language. I have reduced it to some bare facts.

You can add information to the article, but it must not be promotional, it must be purely factual. You cannot say you are one the "the leading consulting companies" for example, unless an independent source has said that about you.

I have also added a company inforbox, which you might like to expand.

For the other companies, the fact that they are subsidaries of Datamonitor is helpful, but you still need to provide (in the articles) evidence of notability for each. You might consider adding them as a section of the main Datamonitor article instead of as separate articles.

Let me know if I can help you further. Best, Gwernol 12:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Brian 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notability
I see Gwernol has already referred you to wp:corp ... From the Datamonitor article it isn't clear to me that it meets wp:corp so I've added the proposed deletion tag. If it *does* meet wp:corp, it would help if you say why in the article or on its talk page. Thanks Brian 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)btball ==Hi, I see you've removed the tag. However, I still don't see how this article passes wp:corp. I know it doesn't pass criteria #2 or #3 and my Google searches don't find sources for #1 either: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

* This criterion excludes: o Media re-prints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. 1         o Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories. * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.".

If there *are* sources that show how Datamonitor passes WP:CORP can you please provide them here or in the article? Thanks Brian 15:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Datamonitor
Hi Jenny,

First a procedural point. It is not appropriate for you to ask for personally identifying information about any editor on Wikipedia. I will not give out my personal phone number to any person.

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here. Specifically look at the WP:CORP guidelines. The sources you provide need to show that Datamonitor meets at least one of these criteria.

The quality or otherwise of the Gartner article is irrelevant. I'm sure you'll agree that just because one article doesn't meet the rules, it does not mean that every article can.

You say "We are a reputable company and wanted to use your service to provide people with information about our company". It is very important that you understand that Wikipedia is not a venue for you to promote your company. This is an encyclopedia not an advertising space. This is why we strongly discourage vanity articles which Datamonitor is.

You should also look at the reliable sources guidelines which tell you what a reliable source actually is. Gwernol 16:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Datamonitor continued
Hi Jenny, I'm not trying to be difficult - just trying to determine if this article meets WP:CORP or not. Right now, it seems not. I don't know about the Gartner article, maybe it needs to be improved or deleted too - but that's not really relevant to the Datamonitor discussion. First, I'm not easily reached by phone, I live in France most of the year and am travelling in the U.S. at the moment a discussion here is best, second best is email, I can be reached at btball@gmail.com - however this is a community consensus issue anyway - it's not my decision, I'm just one of thousands of editor. Link 2 does not meet the wp:corp guideline "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." It is a Nortel press release and mentions Datamonitor in passing. Datamonitor is not the subject, in that case, if a non-trivial published work whose source is independent of the company itself ... Link 1 just shows that Datamonitor is listed on a stock exchange - that doesn't satisfy any of the three criteria of wp:corp. Link 3 is the closest to meeting guideline 1 of wp:corp ... but it is only one reference and guideline one says "...multiple non-trivial published works...". Also, a clarification - we are not a "service" for letting people know about companies - Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia ... What qualifies as an entry in the Wikipedia encyclopedia is guided by verifiability and notability - in the case of corporations WP:CORP is the essential guideline and right now, it doesn't look like Datamonitor meets the criteria. You might also see WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not advertising ... and based on your statement above it seems to me that the reason you want this article here is to push people to your site (advertising). That's explicitly what Wikipedia is *not* about. I hope this helps. Brian 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)btball

Datamonitor article
Hi

I have stripped the Datamonitor article down to the bare facts that i was previously told i was allowed to have up. So could you please remove the deletion and leave the article as it appears now Many thanks Jenny


 * I will certainly not remove the deletion, since the Wikipedia process for debate should be allowed to reach its conclusion, not be subverted. However, I do appreciate the effort to remove the vanity aspects of the article. I have added some supporting evidence to the article and noted in the ongoing debate that I support keeping it. You are free to do the same here if you wish. By the way, someone ought to point out to the folks running the Datamonitor press center here that the current year is 2006, not 2007 and that providing links to the articles concerned instead of just names would be very, very helpful. Gwernol 11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Datamonitor, again
Regarding the article, since the last afd, even though it was developing fine, it got a lot of content which diminished its encyclopedic value. That resulted in the arguments against the article which got it deleted in the first place come into play and that got it deleted.

For example, the timeline of its operations. That itself made the article promotional. If you want, I will restore it without the timeline. But it needs more work, like a description of what the company does is missing. Or some turnover info. That should be present but in a way that does not appear to be promotional. Regards, --soum talk 15:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, if you use a non-organization name as your username, if your organization is not asking you to make edits, and follow the policies here (verifiability, atribution to reliable sources, and neutral point of view), you can edit the article. But it is preferable to limit yourself to correcting any factual errors and simple vandalism. --soum talk 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All the best with the article. --soum talk 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the best with the article. --soum talk 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Datamonitor
A tag has been placed on Datamonitor 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 a company or corporation, 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 companies and corporations.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ju66l3r (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Datamonitor. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Datamonitor~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)