User talk:Lbarna66

Welcome!
Hello, Lbarna66, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Lightware, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, 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 Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! noq (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Lightware


A tag has been placed on Lightware 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 an organization or company, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. noq (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you nominated multiple articles about electronics companies for deletion, using the same rationale as above. If you have a problem with your article's deletion, ask questions. As it's been deleted, I can't see it to elaborate upon the nomination, but the first step in such a situation is to talk to, who left the message above, not to try to get competitors/other companies' articles deleted. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Concerning the deletion of Lightware entry.

I HAVE tried to write to whoever deleted the article, I even entered a clear and justified reason for the Lightware company to be a relevant entry as the first ever digital switcher was released by them so they are industry pioneers.

True, articles are not available on the net about the event where the milestone device introduced back in 2006. I have examined all the pages of similar companies on WIKI and their entries are neither more relevant nor justified based on the reason I was given as cause for quick deletion. As this I find outrageously unfair (those companies being substantially bigger in size and richer, which may or may not have something to do with their pages can stay) I thought I had to trigger a discussion at least of why this unfair advantage is given to some...???

So yes, I do definitely mean to get those pages deleted, for the exact reason indicated.

Cheers,

lbarna66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbarna66 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate your frustration. You spent time working on an article, know that it's important, and see other articles that look to be about subjects of similar (or less) significance that aren't deleted. I get it. I've had work deleted, too. One of the trickiest things to learn when starting to edit Wikipedia is "Notability", a sort of technical term or term of art that doesn't mean "importance" or "noteworthiness" in the typical sense, but rather is based entirely on the extent to which a coverage has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. For a company, that can be magazine articles, newspapers, high-quality websites, journals, books, etc. The best first thing to do when writing an article is to gather together all of the sources you can find about the subject and try to determine if it's notable in Wikipedia terms. If you want, I can provide feedback about that next time. There are also people willing to help at The Teahouse, a place for new editors to ask questions.
 * The deletion process is also kind of complicated. The rationale for which Lightware was deleted suggests it did not make a credible claim of significance -- the most common manifestation of that is when someone creates an article about a company with just basic corporate information, a list of features/products, a list of personnel, descriptions of the company's history -- and, most importantly, does not include sufficient sources to establish notability. It can be a pretty gray area, but if notability weren't established, it would likely be nominated for deletion rather than speedy deleted and simply take more time to happen. To have another article deleted, you would have to search for sources yourself and then come to a conclusion that there are not sufficient sources to establish notability as presented in WP:CORPDEPTH (the notability criteria specific to companies/organizations). As you already tried proposed deletion, WP:AFD would be your next step along that path. But I would discourage you from doing so. It's possible some of them aren't notable, but don't base it on comparative importance in the "real world" -- it's just based on coverage. If you're doing it as revenge, it will also likely be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point or otherwise not with the goal of improving the encyclopedia.
 * The admin that deleted the article, might be willing to "userfy" the article, moving it to a subpage of your userpage, where you can develop it until it's ready to move back to the article space. You'd have to take that up with him.
 * As a final note -- and I would mention this with anyone passionately working on an article about a company -- you should be aware, if you're involved with the company, of Wikipedia's rules about conflict of interest editing. Might not be applicable, of course. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I do greatly appreciate your care and explanations, but truly, my concerns still stand, the treatment I had is clearly unfair, and I only have no real proof claiming that it's also biased. As doing this deletion request really could feel like a revenge crusade I have no intention to bring it forward, all I meant was to get some explanation of how similarly irrelevant entries can remain up while mine was deleted instantly, before providing more proof of relevance. Frustrating it is, but if wikipedia is about who can get more PR articles linked in, then a giant company in the same industry will be always more relevant than an industry pioneer smaller one with whatever breakthrough developments in technology. And yes, actually I used to work for them (Lightware) at a time and I do appreciate their expertise beyond whatever market share they achieve, especially considering where they operate and where they came from... So I guess this should be the end of the story on my part. THX again for caring.


 * I took another look at the article--I always will, if asked. There is no indication in the article that the company is important, except unsourced claims to be the first with a particular product. No indication of company size, or market penetration. No references, besides two press releases.  The main content was a list of products, which is information that belongs on the web page. When you have references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements, you';re welcome to try again, but use the WP:Article Wizard. I call your attention to our policies on WP:Conflict of Interest, including our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to  paid contributions without disclosure


 * As for fairness, you are right that we have probably tens of thousands of equally inadequate articles. The solution is not to add more of them, but to remove them. It will take quite a while until we do that, but we will. If there are any you have in mind in particular, let me know on my user talk page.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for at least re-evaluating. I think I clearly indicated that all other pages with entries of similar companies in the same audiovisual industry have their pages intact on WIKI for years, with not a tiny notability factor more than Lightware. I actually took the source of one of them and simply edited it to create the entry for Lightware, so the page I created was not merely similar to that other one, but almost identical to it. The reference articles were third party articles, unlike the other companies' PR article references on their own (blog) pages. I also wrote that unfortunately I have not been able to come up yet with a digitally available proof for Lightware being a milestone achiever (the first of that particular product).

And no, thank you, I am pretty fed up trying to create that entry on WIKI by trying to to get the same rights to do so as other, (bigger) companies has had. My attempt was at least the third one to do so, after others have tried that before me. At least I hope you get substantial sponsorhip from those other AV companies who are more "lucky", because otherwise I think WIKIPEDIA is an extremely important and useful source and initiative.