User talk:Nicolays

Welcome!

Hello, Nicolays, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as CoWorker Online, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, 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!  Boolyme बूलीमी   Chat बोलो!! 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of CoWorker Online


A tag has been placed on CoWorker Online 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 person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Boolyme बूलीमी   Chat बोलो!! 15:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CoWorker Online


A tag has been placed on CoWorker Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate 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  at the top of the article, immediately below the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate), and providing your reasons for contesting on the article's talk page, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Also, you seem to have been doing this a lot. Please cease re-creating CoWorker Online. If you want my advice, I think you should wait and see if someone else creates the article. For the record, if you represent CWO, then you have a COI (WP:COI). Please read that. GoogolplexForce (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to your questions

 * 1) People are not allowed to read about "all other companies" but yours. Wikipedia deletes hundreds of non-notable business articles each week.
 * 2) Being mentioned on a Wikipedia article does not make a company notable, so the fact it is mentioned in a list in another article is irrelevant.
 * No, other articles do not have to be deleted simply because this article was. This fallacy is addressed at WP:OTHERSTUFF. To wit, the inclusion of one non-notable article does not excuse the inclusion of all others.
 * 1) To get to the heart of it, as is explained in the templates provided on your talk page above this very message, A7 is Wikipedia's criterion of notability. WP:Notability explains the basic tenets, which are broken down more specifically for applicability for businesses at WP:CORP. A business' article must demonstrate (with reliable sources) that it meets at least one of the notability criteria described. The article, as it was written, did not provide any information indicating it met any of these criteria.
 * 2) Lastly, for anyone interested in writing about businesses, I would strongly encourage you to read WP:COI on the chance it is applicable to you. - Vianello (Talk) 03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why information is not allowed on Wikipedia?
I'm the main developer of an accounting software program called CoWorker Online. One of our clients noticed that Wikipedia has a list called Comparison of accounting software and CoWorker Online was not mentioned on the list. I therefore decided to add CoWorker Online into this list of accounting software, simply to give people a true list of what is really available in acocunting software. Why hide CoWorker Online when we in fact should be on the list? This would only make the list on Wikipedia more precise and up-to-date. I therefore created a Wikipedia account and started on the tutorial on how to make my first article. Easy.....I went into the list and added CoWorker Online on the right place and kept everything in the same format and in a netrual tone. As ALL the listed entries on the list also had a link with more information, I also had to make a page just for CoWorker Online. This was done by copy the content from Xero (software) so the format would be the same. I made sure that everything was kept in a netrual tone, just like Xero had, not trying to advertise the product but keeping it on the same informative level as the others. All good....

Within a few hours the CoWorker Online page had been removed by User:Boolyme. The reason for this was because of "advertising" of the product (remember I had only written the same kind of content as Xero as our system is very similar to Xero). Anyway, not trying to debate his decision, I decided to change the page and copy the layout from one of the other entries from the list. This was done from the page Comarch and I changed the content to fit CoWorker Online. Simple and easy, not trying to "advertise" the product in any way, just pure information.

A few hours later the CoWorker Online page had been removed again, this time by User:Vianello. This was done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which means "No indication of importance". Oh well, what to do now? The content was just as important as the other entries on the list, some of them with much less boring information. I tried to get an answer from User:Vianello to explain to me in plain english why CoWorker Online can't have a page when the other accounting software companies can. The answer was that "A business article must demonstrate (with reliable sources) that it meets at least one of the notability criteria described". Fair enough, but MOST of the business pages on the wikipedia list do NOT have this. Just look at CYMA Systems, Cubit Accounting, Banana Accounting, AccountsPortal, etc. etc. List list just goes on and on....

Soon after User:Boolyme had removed the CoWorker Online page I got a "warning" from User:GoogolplexForce saying "you seem to have been doing this a lot. Please cease re-creating CoWorker Online". At this point I had only done 2 savings ever in Wikipedia, and both of them was for the CoWorker Online page. Eh? What to do now. OK, I decided to dump the CoWorker Online page, but just keep the listing on Comparison of accounting software as true information for people looking for accounting software but without the link to the company.

Guess what....within a few hours User:Vianello also removed the link on the list Comparison of accounting software, this time the reason was "non-notable addtion with no article". Is this a joke? The reason it had no arcticle was because it had been removed by User:Vianello for not being important enough.

So there we have it. For some reason the Wikipedia administrators decide what goes on a list called Comparison of accounting software which is not showing all software entries available, but only what they want people to see. Why are they hiding information from people? I understand the need of Wikipedia administrators to keep the information "clean", but to deny true entries under a list called Comparison of accounting software is beyond me. The decision to remove the CoWorker Online page only puts up the question "why?" when the Wikipedia list has several entries of companies with same level of information as the CoWorker Page had. If there was a standard on removing pages, them most of the entries on the list of accounting software would simply not be there. It can only be based on a personal choise by the administrator not to show the CoWorker Online page.

Oh Well, I guess there is nothing one can do here. The list Comparison of accounting software on Wikipedia must now continue without the entry of CoWorker Online. If someone ask me again why CoWorker Online are not shown on the list, I can only reply "They didn't want us on the list". Maybe we need to donate an amount to Wikipedia before we can be added, I don't know. Maybe that's why the big companies are on the list, but the smaller companies like us do not have a change - thanks to Wikipedia (Well, except some of the entries on the list which are actually smaller than CoWorker Online but for some reason they are allowed to stay). I'm not asking for free advertising here. I fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia, but then I cannot understand why our contribution to the list is not important or needs to be removed because we don't have an article (duh?).

So for people looking on the list called Comparison of accounting software. Please be aware there is one more entry called CoWorker Online, but this information is not allowed on the list. Don't ask me why.
 * Don't ask you why? That's rather disingenuous to say when you were just told and when the reason is shown exactly above this post - and when, in this very post, you already explained it ("A business article must demonstrate (with reliable sources) that it meets at least one of the notability criteria described"). I also did not remove the link on Comparison of accounting software, as you can see here. The last time I edited the article was here, September of last year, where I unlinked (but did not remove) a reference to a no longer listed article. A look at the article history can confirm this is true at a glance. You also acknowledged, above, that your company does not demonstrate notability via reliable sources. This means your complaint becomes "Well, so do other articles!" - which is a complaint I already addressed (see, again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). If you see some other article that does not belong on Wikipedia, there is absolutely nothing stopping you, or anyone, for nominating it for deletion via WP:PROD, WP:AfD, or WP:CSD if eligible. In short, it seems you are arguing that because some articles that might not belong exist, all articles that do not belong should be allowed. I need not explain why this reasoning is fallacious, I hope. That is like arguing that we should stop prosecuting a crime because one person got away with it (though of course much less serious). The rest of your entry I cannot particularly respond to, as it mostly consists of you supplying your own answers to questions you were already given answers to. If there is anything else I can clarify, please feel free to ask. - Vianello (Talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm looking at it, I have gone through the list of articles you complained about and deletion-tagged them as appropriate (WP:PROD or WP:CSD as needed). You - and, in fact, any user - could have done this yourself/themselves instead of complaining about their inclusion. They are now mostly, if not all, quite likely going to be deleted for the exact same reasons your article was. This is all it takes. When bad articles are included, they should be deleted (or made into good ones if possible) - not used as an excuse to allow bad articles. - Vianello (Talk) 03:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)