User talk:Techweaversadam

A tag has been placed on Techweavers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, 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. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if it weren't spam, there is no indication that the company is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a provider of free web space.  I have tagged the article for speedy deletion again--if it deleted, do not recreate it unless it is improved to meet Wikipedia's guidelines.  Thanks. -- Finngall   talk  20:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Im working on the artical right now. It has been referenced on many other articals, but I have to get that information up.


 * Remember, we're not psychic, and nobody here is an expert on every subject--all the Google hits in the world don't matter if there's nothing in the article indicating why the article is notable. Also, since you apparently have a close connection with the company, you would be well-advised to read the guidelines on conflict of interest. -- Finngall   talk  20:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that a close connection to the company can be detrimental to the credibility of the artical. I was initially intending only to supply a similar amount of information as was listed by another company in the SaaS section of content management systems. (Pepperio) I used their information as a guide to my original writeup. However that was flagged as spam, which I construed to be unfair considering the similarity to the other artical. I was not intending to self promote, or generate a conflict of interest, but provide accurate information regarding an open source alternative to the company that was already listed, in the same fashion that they had listed their information. I did not see anything more notable on their artical than on my own which is where my resistance came from. After reviewing the policies for notability I still see no reason that either artical would be listed, except that they may have been overlooked at the time. In either case both Techweavers and Pepperio do not exist in the English language, and neither is notable enough for inclusion based on your guidelines.

Thanks for your time Techweaversadam 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparing one article to another can be an exercise in madness, since not all articles get the attention they deserve, and just because an article exists doesn't mean it's been given any Official Seal Of Approval. For this reason, using the existence of article X as a justification for the existence of article Y doesn't necessarily carry a great deal of weight.  That said, I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the technical side of things--my focus here is more on the level of a general scan of new articles looking for spam, nonsense, vanity articles, vandalism, etc.  -- Finngall   talk  21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm guilty of assumption. I assumed that since the other artical existed, that it met the minimum standards for inclusion. This was where I used it as a guideline to my own artical. I felt that because the SaaS Section was so limited in participants, that the users visiting that area would like more information on both companies. This made sense to me from a reference perspective. I understand the need to curtail the spam, and senseless vandalism of entries into this resource. Providing spam was never my intention, only additional reference information. Regards Techweaversadam 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)