User talk:Dudeb23

A tag has been placed on TmaxSoft, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. •  nancy  • 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarification regarding TmaxSoft
I hope this explanation is a little bit clearer:

The speedy deletion criterion A7 states that if the article does not have an assertion of notability (as said in the corporate notability criteria and the statements are preferably backed by reliable sources), the article can be deleted.

In this particular article's case, the article consisted of 5 sentences, none of which implied notability in sense that Wikipedia understands the term:
 * 1) Location of the company does not confer notability (there are many companies based in South Korea),
 * 2) Field of enterprise does not confer notability (there are many software companies),
 * 3) Founder may confer notability but there was no link to an article that explained why this person was notable at all (there was no article on this individual),
 * 4) Size of the organisation does not (usually) matter in evaluating notability,
 * 5) nor does their association with any particular institution.

In other words, the article did not have any of the mentions of notability as specified in WP:CORP: specifically, the big requirement is having secondary, independent, in-depth sources that establish what this company does and what kind of achievement it has done.

Don't you agree that this particular short article did not do its best to explain what this company was all about? The article did not explain why this particular company was different from other companies, nor did it make it very easy to verify such claims - verification of claims is integral to Wikipedia.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the company has had to have some documented influence that goes beyond its reach. Third-party academic research or journalistic coverage, in other words.

Please understand that these deletions are primarily done to reduce clutter; Wikipedia has to set the bar somewhere, and we're routinely getting rid of articles that do not explain their raison d'être; if we wouldn't, we'd be buried in articles about people and organisations that do not have any impact on society as whole. (Or at least that's how the theory goes. =)

Feel free to recreate the article if it really does have any influence: If the company has had, as you claim, "successes and failures" of international scale, there are probably independent press coverage to that effect. If you claim there's a lesson to be learned from this company's actions, then we need third-party coverage to that effect - if someone has used this company as a case for analysis, it could be linked to from this article.

Hope this helps, and happy editing! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)