User talk:Robert Rogge

Speedy deletion nomination of Wordbee


A tag has been placed on Wordbee, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, 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. (See section A7 of 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. —S MALL JIM   14:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Most of the text was completely unreferenced, and the one ref you gave produced a "Page not found" message when I clicked on it. There is nothing stated in the article that even suggests that this software is notable, such as number of copies sold or profitability. For all we are told, you might be the only user. If, as you say, there are only three sources, consisting of two associated with the company and a dead link, it's not notable.
 * It was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Although you tell us nothing about why the software is notable, the greater part of the text consists of unsourced claims presented as fact, which reads like a sales brochure even if there is no overtly "this product is wonderful" text
 * The article was largely created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. If, as you say, it's all your writing and you haven't used references, it's original research

Hi Roger, deleted text here shortly, note that I've removed the category while it's sandboxed. I've made a few minor changes, fixing spelling and capitalisation, added a couple of wikilinks. Let me know when you are ready and I'll have another look.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  09:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)