User talk:Glenzola

Welcome!

Hello, Glenzola, 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 Praktika, 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 Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Singularity42 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Praktika[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 Praktika 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 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, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Singularity42 (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am new to WIKI and still do not know much. I have received your review for my article on Praktika with a "speed deletion" tag.

The article describes a new entity in the Dental Practice Management Software (PMS) - it is the first ever Australian dental online management system. The idea of the article was to give people unbiased neutral information to something that has just appeared and is different from the current PMS paradigm.

I find it notable and worth mentioning. It is not an advertising, just facts. Besides similar articles on PMS exist and are not deleted, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentrix

I would appreciate your explanation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenzola (talk • contribs) Copied from email sent to me by user. Makes more sense to address this on talk page. Singularity42 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A key requirement for a subject to have its onw article is that it has to be notable. WP:Notability is the general requirement, and WP:WEB is how the guideline applies to web and internet content. Generally, though, there needs to be multiple, third-party, reliable sources that have covered the product in a non-trivial way. A search of this product online does not reveal that. I have not looked at the other article, but in Wikipedia, each article must be considered on its merits - comparing it to other articles runs afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Singularity42 (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Praktika[edit]

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

A tag has been placed on Praktika 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 it 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 can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Glenzola (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I still do not understand )))"[edit]

Why other Practice Management Software items are notable and deserve WIKI page and this one is not? While this one is really worth referencing as it is a new approach and people want to know what is new. There cannot be different rules for different authors Glenzola (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said above, we assess the mertis of each individual article without comparing them to other articles - see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Beyond that, I cannot help you with you saying which article you think creates a precedent for the article you are proposing. The fact that it is new or novel, etc., isn't part of the guidelines for notability or WP:WEB. There needs to be multiple, third-party reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of this product. Also, please see WP:ITEXISTS. Singularity42 (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not just one - PracticeWorks, Dentrix, SoftDent. It is not just one precedent, do you agree? I have no COI here - I am a Uni lecturer who believes that a new paradigm in Dentistry is worth mentioning. There are no more notable than the product I have described. I find it unfair if similar but older products are covered, while something new is not. It gives an impression in the WIKI article on Practice Management that there have been no progress in the industry since 1998. This is certainly not true. Glenzola (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of all three of the examples you provided show that there are multipe, third-party reliable sources that cover the software in a non-trivial way. The articles need a lot of re-writing, but that is different from whether the article should be deleted or not. Singularity42 (talk)

It is only because the are from the US and belong to huge multinationals that non-trivially advertise them everywhere )))). Hence the sources. In other terms they are equally or even maybe less notable as they represent what is leaving the stage. I still remain at my opinion that Praktika deserves an article for its innovation. Glenzola (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation isn't a criteria. Notability, as defined in WP:Notability and WP:WEB is. Not much I can really say. Singularity42 (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite impressed by the judges learnedness: 'criteria' is plural of 'criterion', thus it cannot possibly be 'a' and 'isn't' (the conjugation and article are wrong). I think, you guys, confuse 'notable' and 'noted'. 'Notable' means it is worth mentioning, 'noted' means it has been mentioned. In my view, innovative ideas are worth mentioning, and that makes them 'notable', in your view they are not. But after all, it is not my resource. )))