An article you have edited has been nominated for deletion. It may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it does nothing but promote some entity or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. The article has been used extensively for link-spamming. See WP:SPEEDY Ephebi (talk) 08:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It seems that your only purpose in editing Wikipedia is advertising, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear JamesBWatson, I would like to notice that there are many transportation profesionals looking afterwards tools like the one I tried to write of. There are some other in the market, but this is the one I know, I would like yo tou tell me what do you think it was wrong in the article because there is no much information about these kind of tools. Automated planning and scheduling tools had been very difficult to find for us, and my purpose was just to let other mates to find the one we chose some years ago... the one I best know. If it was written like and advertissement ok, tell me what should I say not to look like that, but I used Transcad article to match mine so if Transcad was ok I don't really know why mine seems to be advertising...
- You say (in effect) that you wrote the article GoalBus about a product on which not much information is available in order to make it better known. Unfortunately, however, this statement contains two different reasons why the article was not acceptable. (1) Wikipedia accepts articles only on subjects which have established notability by receiving substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Saying that not much information is available about the product suggests that there is no such substantial coverage. Indeed, the sources cited as references in the article did nothing to establish notability. My own searches tended to confirm this: I found very little information indeed, and what little there was came largely from www.goalsystems.com, which is clearly not an independent source. (2) Writing an article in order for the subject to be better known is writing to promote it, which is against Wikipedia's policy. A common mistake is to think that "promotion" applies only to commercial promotion by or on behalf of the producers of a product, but this is not so: whether you are promoting a product or service because you stand to gain financially form doing so, because you happen to think it is a good product and you would like it to be better know and more widely used, or for any other reason, it is against Wikipedia's policy.
- I do understand that it is perfectly natural for someone with little or no experience of editing Wikipedia to think it is an ideal place to spread information about something little known that they think worthwhile, but unfortunately that is a purpose which Wikipedia does not serve.
- The article was nominated for deletion by Ephebi, who wrote "promotion of non-notable software product". Although Ephebi gave promotion as the reason for deletion, the lack of notability (as defined by Wikipedia's notability guidelines) is a more fundamental problem. The article contained such language as "powerful goal function which solves in a unique process" and "lets this application lead", which reads like promotional praise rather than objective description, but it would not be difficult to rewrite it without this kind of wording. However, no amount of rewriting will make a non-notable product into a notable one.
- One final point. It is natural for someone new to writing article for Wikipedia to look at existing articles to see what is acceptable, and to some extent this can be helpful. However, it is by no means a reliable method, as there are many articles around which do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards, but which have not yet been picked up. WP:OTHERSTUFF goes into this idea at greater length, if you are interested. I have looked at TransCAD and I am very doubtful as to whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. It may well be deleted soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. When I wrote the article I used references that weren't Goalsystems ones from newpapers or websites I could find. I am sure this subject hasn't enough notability for people who don't work on tranportation systems but I can assure you that automated planning and scheduling is a real problem for companies like ours and its very important in our sector. We spent a lot of time and money to find out something that could help us... I suposse that in the future there will be more information abroad about this products but I sincerelly would like to safe other mates all the headaches I had with this subject. If you think I can mend the article someway not to look like advertising for me its ok just tell me, If you think it hasn't enough notability yet I won't try to rewrite it again. But please, don't delete Transcad, I found it here and it was a help for me...
The page User:JJULEN92 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which is unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Timetables, logistics, public transport scheduling & routing are complex subjects, and the topic is notable, and very suitable for an encyclopaedia article. There is little I can see on the subject other than the rather weak Autonomous logistics article. This is an area where specialist input from someone intimately involved in the theory would be helpful. Perhaps the article on Traffic simulation provides a useful example? (You will see that software packages are listed in that article, and often described. But note that a lot of those software packages are intimately linked to a particular theory, method or national policy, hence there is a reason for its existence as an article.) Until there is high-level article describing the issues around scheduling and routing, there is no point having more than a list of packages at this stage. And at all times, if you are editing an article you need to be careful that the descriptions are neutral. See WP:NPOV Ephebi (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)