User talk:Destructo84

This is Destructo84's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entuity (August 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DatGuy was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Entuity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Destructo84, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entuity (August 11)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Entuity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entuity (August 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I would not resubmit as there's still not going to be enough substance for establishing independent notability yet.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Entuity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Entuity (August 28)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Abdullah Alam was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of websites and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Entuity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Abdullah Alam (talk) 05:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Entuity[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Entuity, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages 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 Wikipedia: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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. David.moreno72 12:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Entuity[edit]

What is your connection to Entuity? Please read the conflict of interest policy. If you have a conflict of interest, it must be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no professional relationship to Entuity so there is no conflict of interest when creating the article.

Speedy deletion nomination of Entuity[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Entuity, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages 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 Wikipedia: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 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a stronger argument[edit]

if you at least acted like a real editor and signed all your posting with four of these, ~ which signs and dates your reply. Also if you figured out that you start a rebuttal or response to another editor's posting with one or more (depending on how many answers there are) of these : which indents your reply and makes the conversation easier for other editors to follow. Seeing these things always puts me in a better, more receptive mood to an editor's POV. Also please reflect on the thought that editors such as myself will often look at another editors history, what they have previously posted and what articles that are working on when deciding how to respond to a particulate situation. Such as yours. Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice[edit]

1. I deleted the article Entuity as advertising, and have blocked its re-creation. 2. It isn ot good practice to respond to the deletion of your own promotional article by trying to delete other articles on similar companies. Iam going to bvery carefully examine your nominations for deletion. For the time being, stop., because it might be getting disruptive. 3. When you do nominate an article for speedy deletion or any other deletion process, you MUST say so in the edit summary. This is not optional--it helps us over-worked admins check the status. 4. Criterion A7 applies to companies, but not to their products. If t Company A makes product B, if the article is written and titled about A, it's a possible A7, if it's written and titled about B, it's not, and you must use Prod or AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked the recreation even though there still was no information provided as to what made that page different from any of the pages marked for deletion. There was no advertising, everything provided was fact, notable sources were provided and no clear direction on how to fix any issues other editors might have. The pages I marked for deletion can all be viewed as advertising a private company with proprietary software similar to the company Entuity. Please provide actual instruction so that the article may be considered useful since that was supposed to be it's only purpose. Destructo84 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping your own case by this sort of action. Rather, consider keeping a low profile (having admins caution you about your editing is NOT an example of this), for several months while you do several hundred non-controversial edits, and learn the ropes. Waving an I AM SUCH A VICTIM flag will not help. If you think your article was wikiworthy why would you want to delete other similar ones? You don't even have a user page. Just type anything there and you'll be a blue link. It will pay dividends in the long run if you are in this for the long run. If you are not, well, "so long." Carptrash (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on your question[edit]

Hi Destructo, I'll try to give some advice about why your article was deleted, and things you can do. I'm not an admin so I can't see what was there before deletion, so I can only talk in general terms. The article was deleted under 2 criteria, "no indication of notability" and "unambiguous promotion".

The first means that the article didn't include anything to suggest that it meets the notability criteria as defined at WP:GNG. In short, articles need to show that several reliable sources are discussing the topic in depth. Those kind of sources typically do not include the subject's own site, press releases, social media, or trivial mentions in otherwise reliable sources. For companies, this also excludes directory mentions, stock listings, etc. Note that all of those sources can be included in the article, just that they don't "count" towards establishing notability.

The second deletion reason was due to being advert-like. Since you associated the article with NetMon software packages, I assume it is one of those. For those, things like long lists of features, listing every patch revision or everything it can do, will raise the advert flag. I notice that you initially created this as a draft, where it was declined multiple times for being promotional. When you promoted it on your own, the result was unfortunately predictable. I'd say your best bet would be to re-write the article as a draft from scratch using WP:AFC, and if it is again deemed promotional upon review, engage the reviewer for advice, or the WP:TEAHOUSE if the reviewer is busy or not online while you are.

Lastly, pointing out other articles that seem to fail the same critera usually only results in some of them being deleted as well, which has happened in this case. We try to treat every article based on its own merits, so arguments like "if you delete this, you have to delete that", tend to not hold much weight.

Sorry that your initial article-writing experience has gone sour, but once you get the hang of the sort of sourcing and tone that is expected, it's really not that bad. I'll be glad to help any way I can, just ask here or on my talk page (Click "Caw!"). Crow^Caw 20:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption to make a point[edit]

I'm not entirely sure what is going on, but it very much looks like (having seen an "article for creation" request fail and perhaps in frustration that similar articles seem to exist), that {{speedy}} tags are being placed on semi-related articles. This looks like textbook WP:POINT behaviour, and is very likely to result in a block. Strongly recommend any involved editors read the relevant guideline, and consider the alternatives offered to disruptive/pointy behaviours. Guliolopez (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]