Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time to write the Flaming Thunder article. However, it does not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, and has, as a result, been marked for deletion. Please do not be disheartened by what may happen to it. Just continue to edit Wikipedia and add articles which are suitable for an encyclopedia.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. To do this, click on my username, click discussion at the top, and then the (+) button. Also see Wikipedia's help page. Please note, in particular, our guidelines as to notability, promotion and conflict of interest. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm the one that tagged your page for speedy delete. I was about to post the following on your article's talk page, but OrangeMike deleted it before I could. I had a couple concerns:
First, you don't say that your language is actually being widely used (or, as far as I can see, used at all). Wikipedia does not have a page for everything people come up with, even if it is a useful and easy-to-use language. This is right now the major concern I have. If it's not being widely used, it probably shouldn't get a page.
Second, the style you're writing the article in is very promotional: that's why I marked it as spam. Frankly, it reads as an advertisement, which isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia. I agree that the MatLab article is also a little unbalanced (probably due to all the MatLab lovers on Wikipedia) but they do have external sources for some of it, and they also have a "Limitations" section.
If you can clear both of these up, it'll probably be okay. However, you should be aware that people are often even faster to delete pages that have already been deleted, so you might want to get the article in very good shape before you recreate it (should you choose to do so).
Lastly, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia myself. I've done a lot of vandalism removal, and some speedy tagging, but if you have questions about anything else you might want to find a more experienced user.
Believe it or not, I do sympathize with your frustration, David; however, the article as written failed the notability and promotional tests. The other articles you mention are about programs already in use, which have clearly established notability. In addition, the tone of those articles is not promotional, with ad-like use of second person and the like. I am sorry; but if you can establish that Flaming Thunder is in fact already notable, and provide some reliable sources to show it, there is nothing to inhibit you from creating a new, less promotional article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
> OrangeMike deleted it before I could.
Thanks for the explanation. I left a message on OrangeMike's talk asking what happened, because I was patiently waiting for a response when suddenly everything disappeared.
> First, you don't say that your language is actually being widely used ...
I thought that would be *against* Wikipedia's guidelines, because it would sound too advertisey, so I deliberately left it out. Flaming Thunder (and DPGraph, it's forerunner) are licensed to over 2 million people at over 1,000 colleges, universities and schools around the world.
Here's a complete list of the all the site licensees: http://www.flamingthunder.com/sites
> Second, the style you're writing the article in is very promotional:
Which is ironic, because I left out the number-of-users information because I thought it sounded too promotional when MatLab used it. I was actually in the process of editing it to sound even less promotional when it was deleted.
> ... and they also have a "Limitations" section.
Which is also ironic, because one of the last edits I put in before it was deleted was a part saying that Flaming Thunder only had rudimentary symbolic capabilities. I think it was the last sentence in the top section, if you still have access to a copy of the page.
And I would be happy to add a specific Limitations section.
> If you can clear both of these up, it'll probably be okay.
I'd be happy too, and in fact I'm grateful that you pointed out your concerns because I think it will lead to a better article.
How do I go about getting the article undeleted?
> The other articles you mention are about programs already in use ...
See my above response to FCSundae; I deliberatly left that out because I thought it would sound too promotional to point out that over 1,000 colleges, unversities and schools around the world subscribe to Flaming Thunder and it's forerunner DPGraph: http://www.flamingthunder.com/sites
Flaming Thunder is fairly new, so not many people mention it on their websites yet, but if you do a Google search for DPGraph you'll find websites all over the place with information on it.
> ... ad-like use of second person
I didn't know 2nd person was against Wikipedia rules, but if you check my recent edits I was actually adding information about Flaming Thunder's limitations ("rudimentary symbolic", etc), and removing anything promotional, when the article was deleted without giving me a chance to respond.
Since I feel that I have answered your and FCSundae's concerns as stipulated in the speedy deletion message, and I am quite willing to rewrite anything you may object to in the future, how do I go about getting the page undeleted?
If you want to create the article again (and there's no "undelete," you just have to create it again), there's one big thing that's likely to make the difference between deleted and undeleted: external sources. Bluntly, if there are no sources about it other than its website, it probably isn't notable enough. If you want to say it's a great language, fine, but find where someone else said it (and someone reliable, not just Joe Schmoe's blog). If it's all from you, it's going to look like spam again and someone will probably delete it. As a bare minimum, including the number of users will help a lot, even if you're only citing your website. It'll let people know that this actually exists. Also, please try to write in more of a balanced way. If it sounds like an ad, it'll probably be deleted.
Again, I'm also a newbie, so please be sure to also consult helpful pages such as the ones on notability and promotional material OrangeMike listed above, and if I've contradicted anything they say (or that OrangeMike says, or any more experienced user), definitely trust them and not me.
> (and there's no "undelete," you just have to create it again)
Are you sure? The message I got about the deleted article said don't worry, it hadn't really been deleted.
> If you want to say it's a great language, fine, but find where someone else said it
I thought that would sound too promotional, but would be happy to, if you had mentioned it before OrangeMike deleted everything. As I said, search google for DPGraph (the precursor to Flaming Thunder) and you'll get lots of hits with people saying nice things about it. Besides, I don't think that over 1,000 colleges, university and schools would have subscribed if they didn't like it.
> (and there's no "undelete," you just have to create it again)
Apparently there is. Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_was_my_page_deleted%3F "Do not despair: none of the information on a "deleted" page has actually been lost."
Since I believe I have adequately addressed your and OrangeMike's concerns, could you please find out (or maybe OrangeMike knows?) how to get the page undeleted?
Okay, that's a good example of why you shouldn't trust newbies like me :). Actually, if you keep reading that page it explains what to do. If you still want my advice, my guess (and I could be wrong) is that you won't get your page undeleted by those processes, because the truth is, the article as it stood DID fail the notability and promotional guidelines, so no one's likely to restore it. You might be able to talk to OrangeMike about getting the text back so you can work on it as long as you promise not to resubmit in its current form; I honestly have no idea on the policy on that (so please don't say "FCSundae said I could get the text back"!). About the promotional stuff: What I meant above was not that you should say more good things about it, but that the positive things you do say (easy to use, etc.) should ideally come from someone else (and again, someone reliable: a tech magazine, maybe?). If you think it'll be easier to find good sources on DPGraph, why don't you just create that article? If there are no reliable sources on Flaming Thunder (and again, please read the Wikipedia page on reliable sources before you decide), it may not be ready yet for an article.
> If you think it'll be easier to find good sources on DPGraph, why don't you just create that article?
That's a good idea. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!
I'll see if OrangeMike knows how to get the text back.
- The deleted information has been moved to what we call a "sandbox" User:DavidBParker/Flaming Thunder so that you can work on it. Good luck. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Conflicts of interest
I'm a little worried by the name DPGraph, because it leads me to think that "DP" might stand for "David Parker." We have pretty strict rules about conflict of interest here. In fact, I'll string together a couple of the standard templated warnings we give folks under these circumstances, because they contain all sorts of useful links to relevant policies and guidelines, and save me the keystrokes of typing it all in by hand (you're a programmer, you grok "cut and paste"). You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.
Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
- and you must always:
- avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
> I'm a little worried by the name DPGraph, because it leads me to think that "DP" might stand for "David Parker."
It stands for "Dynamic Photorealistic". Here is the website: http://www.dpgraph.com/
It's been in existence for almost 9 years. Here is the news dating back to 1999: http://www.dpgraph.com/new-3d-graphs.html
Over 2 million people at about 1,000 schools and colleges are licensed. Here are some of the site subscribers: http://www.dpgraph.com/graphing-users.html
Plus we give free subscriptions to any Flaming Thunder subscribers who don't already have DPGraph: http://www.flamingthunder.com/sites
Wanna see something cool?
People from all over the world have contributed 100's of examples of how they used DPGraph to the math art gallery at: http://www.dpgraph.com/math-art.html
> The deleted information has been moved to what we call a "sandbox" User:DavidBParker/Flaming Thunder so that you can work on it. Good luck.
Thanks, I appreciate that! I'll edit it as per your and FCSundae's suggestions, and then try reposting it.
Signing your edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder; I guess I tend to forget them.
Please stop promoting Flaming thunder
It is not appropriate for you to introduce promotional material (as you did into Interval (mathematics) and Cross compiler), promoting your pet-project Flaming thunder, particularly if there are no reliable third-party sources establishing the notability of this compiler. You might also want to look into the conflict of interest policy. It seems that you might have a conflict of interests, and that perhaps you should refrain from editing material directly related to Flaming thunder. silly rabbit (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I undid both changes because there is nothing in the least promotional about either of them. They are both verifiable. In fact, the part on "Cross Compilers" contained the only mathematical explanation on the page of why cross compilers are difficult to write (all the GNU C article said was that it's a huge amount of work). And I can find nothing in the Wikipedia documentation saying that all referenced sources have to be "notable".
In fact, since obviously interval arithmetic is notable because it has a page -- doesn't that make Flaming Thunder notable because it's the only programming language that supports intervals?
If you point out the specific parts of each edit that you think are "promotional", I will be happen to reword them.
- Notability is a basic requirement for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. All material should be verified by multiple independent resources. This is not negotiable. Here is a final spam warning for you. I will have you blocked if you continue to attempt to insert promotional materials into articles:
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Interval (mathematics), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. silly rabbit (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
> I will have you blocked if you continue to attempt to insert promotional materials into articles:
You stil haven't explained why either was promotional.
Interval arithmetic is obviously "notable" because there is an article on it. Flaming Thunder is the only programming language that supports interval arithmetic. Why is it inappropropriate to mention Flaming Thunder on the interval arithmetic page?
- Look, this "Flaming thunder" isn't mentioned in any reliable third-party sources. Please stop adding the self-published promotional links. It qualifies as WP:SPAM, and is not appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Flaming thunder itself has to be notable in order to be mentioned significantly in the article. silly rabbit (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
> Look, this "Flaming thunder" isn't mentioned in any reliable third-party sources.
From my reading of the Wikipedia documention, references only have to be independent (and I have nothing to do with the people who wrote the article), and verifiable (and anyone can download Flaming Thunder and do interval arithmetic with it).
> Please stop adding the self-published promotional links.
You still haven't quoted what was promotional about anything I posted.
> Flaming thunder itself has to be notable in order to be mentioned significantly in the article.
Please quote the Wikipedia documentation that says that references have to be notable. All I can find is that they have to be indepedent and verifiable.
> Flaming thunder itself has to be notable in order to be mentioned significantly in the article.
I think you are mistaken. I think that only the topic has to be "notable", not everything in the article.
Here is a quote from the Wikipedia documentation on "Notability":
"These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles."
Could you please undo the deletions you made?
Here is the complete reference from the official Wikipedia documention on notability which I think pretty clearly shows that you were mistaken and that I was completely correct to include the information I did. The "notability" requirement does not apply to mentioning Flaming Thunder in an article; it only applies to an article about Flaming Thunder (a point which Orange Mike and FCSundae have already made, and which I am appreciatively complying with in part because their suggestions are making for a better article -- which I am working on in a sandbox).
"Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people ). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections."
- Notability guidelines generally do not directly limit content, but content needs also to be verifiable, and be attributed multiple independent sources. A corollary of this is that all material needs to pass a certain minimum threshhold of notability: there needs to be independent coverage. The material you added does not have such sources. When and if Ars Technica writes an article about Flaming Thunder, then you can reference that. But references to the software webpage are inappropriate: See WP:RS and in particular WP:SELFPUB. The material is also obviously promotional. Having a section on Flaming thunder in an article on Intervals appears intended exclusively to generate hits to the commercial site www.flamingthunder.com: See WP:EL. The fact that you are unable to see this suggests that you may want to review your own involvement with Flaming thunder for a potential conflict of interest. silly rabbit (talk) 11:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)