User talk:JonZanran

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page to follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Zanran

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zanran, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.zanran.com/help/about_us.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zanran for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zanran is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zanran until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (JonZanran) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zanran

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 Zanran, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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". 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 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. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your posts on my talk page, at User talk:JamesBWatson#deletion of Zanran entry. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I have replied to another one of you messages. Two other points, which I will put here, as they are not on the topic of the Zanran article, and don't particularly belong there: (1) You say "I still can't claim to understand what's going on here!" Wikipedia can be very confusing for someone new to it. One of the aspects which I found most confusing at first was the operation of the various protocols relating to deletion. At first it all seemed like a game, with completely arbitrary rules. As I got more experience of the way it all works, I found it was not so completely arbitrary as it first seemed to be. However, I still think there are substantial arbitrary elements of it: for example, some of the distinctions between what can and what can't be speedily deleted don't seem to have a lot of logic behind them. (2) I find it makes it much easier to follow discussion on a talk page if all messages on one topic are kept in one section, rather than starting a new section for each comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your latest post on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Zanran for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zanran is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zanran (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AFD

Hi Jon, hate to be the one to make you feel pounded on, but the problem with your article is that I feel it doesn't pass our inclusion criteria at WP:N. At the nut of it is that we require four things, which I will link for you. The subject of any article must be notable, and the information be significant coverage, verified by reliable sources, usually more than one. This means that the search engine would need references published by independent publications that fit the criteria here as 'reliable sources'. Blogs, forums, small unvetted sites, trade magazines, press releases, the website of the search engine, etc. do not qualify. Sometimes those kinds of references are acceptable to demonstrate *some* info in an article, but they certainly can't be used to establish notability. The most obvious types of references that demonstrate it is notable would be articles in well known publications, a review by any significant news website (cnn/network tv local affliates/API/Reuters), Cnet or Wired, city newspapers, or at the very least, multiple coverage by publications that are notable enough themselves to have articles here. The reason that blogs, personal websites and forums aren't allows is that they are not professionally vetted, no professional editors. Same reason we don't allow references from Wikis, even though this IS a Wiki, because anyone can edit them. Maybe someday a major publication will cover the search engine. (maybe tomorrow, maybe next year) Until then, I don't have any choice but to send to AFD for discussion. You can participate there, and if sources are found that pass WP:RS, the deletion process can be reviewed at that point. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that SearchEngineLand and Search Engine Journal would be regarded as serious sites for 'notability'. Alternatively have a look at TechCrunch France. Otherwise you're talking about 'popularity' - not 'notability'. JonZanran (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give SearchEngineLand WP:RS status myself, others may or may not. Under the best of circumstances, it would be more of a trade mag, and not completely independent anyway. In other words, ok to demonstrate some facts, but not enough to prove notability. TechCrunch (the US site) didn't cover it, the French version did, which is a separate site even if owned by the same person, which would be borderline at best. It is a blog (which is usually not acceptable for a source to prove notability) and is even part of the blog project here. Looking at the TechCrunch for the larger, US version itself is a borderline case for it having an article. Most of their references are primary sources. They do have a Wired article on them, but the rest of the references are blogs or passing mentions. Popularity isn't an issue at all. Lots of unpopular companies and people are "notable", meaning that major publications have devoted column space to cover them. Slashdot is long standing, popular website, but can't be used for notability sourcing either. Nor can Facebook or IMDB, although some links to those are appropriate for other purposes. WP:RS's concerns is about the objectivity and quality of the source. How accepted that source is as a professionally vetted, objective source for information. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can we convince you that these sort of blogs are serious publications? In the internet industry, publications such as SearchEngineLand have far more credibility than say The Daily Telegraph.

Finally, Zanran has been included on many university websites Caltech Otago, New Zealand Toronto London South Bank etc etc as a useful resource.

JonZanran (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]