User talk:Mrojek

Nomination of AdRem Software, Inc. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AdRem Software, Inc. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/AdRem Software, Inc. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Notability guideline
Hello,

We have been discussing on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AdRem_Software,_Inc.#AdRem_Software.2C_Inc. an AfD discussion] recently. Your last comment makes me think you still do not quite understand the notability guideline. Do not take that remark as a personal attack - we all were beginners, and I just want to help you to improve Wikipedia.

There are multiple reasons to provide external references on wikipedia. The most important one is to bring proof of claims made by the article (such as, "politician XXX has been accused of corruption"). Another good reason is to give "further reading" opportunities (such as linking to a company's website from the company's article), although these should not be too numerous. However, another important reason is to establish notability of the subject.

The restrictions on the validity of sources depend on what it is supposed to support: for example, a company's website is assumed to provide correct information about a company's CEO, even if it is a primary source. The "notability" sources need to be (1) significant, in-depth coverage, (2) from a source that's independant of the subject, (3) from a reliable source.

Those are cumulative conditions. A passing mention is not considered enough, a source with a close connection to the subject is too biaised even if that source is usually of quality, and a source that has not a good reputation is not good even if it has no ties with the subject whatsoever. Many sources failing each on a different point do not make up for one source passing all three criteria.

There is some debate about the precise meaning of "significant" coverage, and there is some debate about what does or does not constitute a reliable source. However, there is pretty much a consensus that the three conditions are needed at the same time.

Please answer below if you want further explanations.

Best regards, Tigraan (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Tigraan,

Thanks for the message and the info. It's just frustrating, but i do appreciate your help. I would certainly want for the AdRem Software entry to fulfill Wikipedia policies, and stand on its own merit. I feel it does, but i'll keep working at it to convince others :) At this point, there has been just so much back and forth, that not everything is going to be as significant or on point as other things. I still feel that despite certain posts that do not fulfill the policy from my end, there still exist enough that do. For sake of brevity, it may be time to write up a final, summary/conclusion from my end in the next few days. Thanks and best wishes, Michael

Useful tools
To learn how to edit Wikipedia better, see WP:TUTORIAL and Visual editor. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AdRem Software 2015 Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:AdRem Software 2015 Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)