User talk:Klbw17

BriteSoft
A tag has been placed on BriteSoft, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. If you can indicate why BriteSoft is really not blatant advertising, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:BriteSoft. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. You might also want to read the guidelines on spam. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert why the article is not blatant advertising, please affix the template  to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. Tonywalton | Talk 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for brining this to our attention. We updated the page, but it was still deleted. Actually, we are not sure how different our desciption is than many of the other companies, such as MagicSoftware. The company and the product (BriteWorks) pages were linked to from other areas. Please let us know how else we are supposed to fix this as the intent wasn't to advertise. Klbw17 05:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is the article on Magic Software Enterprises has links and statements asserting the notability of the company; in this case, ranked in the Software 500 and publicly traded on NASDAQ and TASE. Check WP:CORP for the rules about what makes a company notable enough to qualify for an article. Make sure to cite reliable sources when making notability claims. As to the article being linked to from elsewhere, all of those entries were created by your group of people within a short time of creating the article. As WP:SPAM says, even if it isn't your intent to spam, adding a bunch of links to your company/company article all at once just looks suspicious. Again, make sure you can prove the company's notability before adding crosslinks to other list articles. -- Shadowlynk 10:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken on the links being done by our team, which makes it look suspicious, however, the reason we mentioned them is that we only created the BriteSoft and BriteWorks definitions because we were pointing to them from other places and thought we should describe the Product and Company as the others had done. Again, we are new to this and probably jumped in before reading the whole guide. We've read the guides now and better understand how this works. Back to the company descriptions, OK, Magic may be a public listed company but many of the others certainly are not. The point is, if someone is looking at a comparison of Rapid Application Development Tools, it probably is not a complete list. We can cite many links and reputable firms who use our product. If you look at the news section of BriteSoft (http://www.britesoftcorp.com/index.html#/news/news.htm), you'll see, among others, there is an agreement with Accenture, the company was at DEMOfall (http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2006fall/79792.php) recently and there are numerous articles written about us e.g. in ComputerWorld (http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1928148329;fp;4;fpid;17). What exactly qualifies a company to be on Wikipedia should not be so subjective as to defeat the whole purpose of this phenomenon !! Let us know if there's something we can write which is more reasonable - do we recreate the BriteSoft and BriteWorks pages again with the links above or do we just give up on the whole idea of using Wikipedia.-- Klbw17 15:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's important to remember that the "whole purpose of this phenomenon" is an attempt to collectively write an encyclopedia, not publish papers on all the next big things and spread the word about a company that needs more press. That's what people mean when they say Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. It's not just that they don't want pages that read like a newspaper ad or a press release; encyclopedia articles need to be about already known, established subjects. That's the reasoning (as I understand it) behind guidelines like WP:CORP. And unfortunately I don't think clients and trade shows qualify notability under those guidelines. The ComputerWorld article is a bit closer, but you'll need an article with a bit more in-depth coverage to qualify under item 1. Let the company grow a little more, get a little more press coverage, then make the article with the new sources. -- Shadowlynk 04:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * DEMOfall is not a trade show. It has a very stringent qualification process to identify the hotest technologies in the world. You should review the list of companies in this space on Wikipedia and you'll see they are not all noteworthy or 'established'. If we have to continue justifying to you why we should be on Wikipedia, then obviously this is not the medium we thought it was and obviously not for us. You should spend your time blocking genuine spam and ill intentions. 'Thanks for your time. Klbw17 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)