Talk:Compare++

Speedy deletion nomination of Compare++

A tag has been placed on Compare++ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. ηyχαμς 16:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Compare++ : my thoughts

Hello. Thanks for your post of my talk page. You have asked how to move the page from your user space to the main space: well before we get that far, you need to understand some crucial things:

The following are based on the article written on this page: User:Liuxin4335

1. The article is in violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please take a long read of this help page, as it describes how to write a encyclopedic article worthy of Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, which the article is also, in my opinion, not for-filling, i.e. not worthy of being an article.

2. In its current state, moving the article into the main space, it would still be eligiable for speedy deletion under these reasons from Wikipedia's speedy deletion selection criteria:

• G11 - The article is written like an advertisement
• G12 - The text in the article is purely copied from a website. Even if you are the copywrite holder, the article needs to be written impartially and as a tertiary text, i.e. writing the article from scratch in your own words.
• A7 - The article does not indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) and does not meet the notability guidelines.

Other discrepancies (which wouldn't justify speedy deletion but would contributed to a deletion request) are:

• The article is completely unreferenced
• Contains hardly any wikilinks (only one)
• Contains what appears to be original research

My advice to you is that you need to do a lot of work on the article. Take a look at other file comparison program articles, such as GNU which is a very good example of how an article like this should be laid out.

I would think carefully about the notability of what you are creating. The article you are creating just seems like one massive advert to me.

If you need any more help, you can contact me on my talk page or place your comments below this, I will be watching this page.

I'm not trying to put you off writing this article, but it needs a lot of attention. - ηyχαμς 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. Exactly, I am a novice for wiki although I learned a lot from wiki over the years. I will modify the article as your suggest. Thanks again.Liuxin4335 (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd look

As the article stands now, it is still completely unreferenced and is also may may not meet the notability guidelines for products and services, which states for the article about a product to be notable it should also discuss the company the service is coming from. To me it still reads like an advertisement, however could arguably be ready for the main space. If you want to brave the new page patrollers again, take a read of How to rename a page. - ηyχαμς 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)