User talk:Tunafish24

Welcome!

Hello, Tunafish24, 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 MyGreenPC, 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! Haakon (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of MyGreenPC

I have nominated MyGreenPC, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGreenPC (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Haakon (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGreenPC. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not delete content on an articles for deletion discussion as you did for the MyGreenPC deletion discussion. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with MyGreenPC, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MyGreenPC

A tag has been placed on MyGreenPC, 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, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first time article wasn't deleted because there was anything wrong with it, rather because it lacked third-party coverage. This time I had made clear to the first user that a simple search on google will result in numerous reviews & discussion regarding this company/product. But after waiting a week, I didn't receive any response from him at all, so I dediced to remove the deletion tag from the article. Also, I'm not sure how following policy is relvant to this case: "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" because it was deleted based on lack of notability, which like I mentioned earlier can be confirmed via google. Tunafish24 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim has described below the issues with the article in more depth. If you can find reliable sources to establish notability then please do follow the advice and create the article citing such sources in your user space to get it eventually published. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Remote desktop software. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you describe how it was an inappropriate link? When an article for a remote access company/product is added to wikipedia, it should be ok to add its link to "typical remote access software" listings and also on comparison of remote desktop software. Tunafish24 (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It failed notability guidelines.ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyGreenPC

<<EC>>:I've deleted this as it was an unimproved reiteration of the article deleted as the result of the deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/MyGreenPC. In the second deletion discussion you asserted 3rd party coverage of the subject. You would do well to cite such sources if you choose to recreate the article. Discussion in forums and reviews by community members are unlikely to be regarded as significant coverage in reliable sources. Big name tech magazines would probably be better. The only sources listed were from the company that makes the product. You also would do well to show how the product meets notability guidelines-- did it win awards, make an impact on computing, set a record. These are more important considerations than features, which were all that was mentioned in the article. Hope this helps. Dloh cierekim 01:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used links from the company because they were direct source of correct & up-to-date information. Still I did let the other user know that there are many reviews out there. For example, here are two links to reviews:Review 1 Review 2

As of why this product is relevant, like I mentioned in the article, its the only product that allows users to directly power-on their shut-down PC, independent of any other PC. Tunafish24 (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have significant coverage from reliable, third party sources with verifiable information for that. The problem with the article is it is not really improved over the prior deletion discussion. I'll move a copy of the article to User:Tunafish24/sanbox so you can work on it there. Ask the "delete" !voters @ the first AFD to look at it once you have the problems remedied and see what they think. Ask me to look at it, and maybe we can get it back in the article space if the problems are corrected. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Copy paste to User:Tunafish24/sanbox. Dloh cierekim 13:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the "reviews"--

Sign up for membership does not meet WP:RS.
free accounts giveaway does not look like WP:RS to me.

I'll ask someone else to look at it in case I'm wrong. You could ask the "delete" !voters from the AFD's to look too. Dloh cierekim 13:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at those two sources as you asked me for a third opinion. Rather than being reviews of the software they look like adverts and so cannot be considered to be reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Polargeo. Sorry Tuna. Dloh cierekim 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyGreenPC

It is apparent that you removed information from this closed AFD discussion. Please do not alter content of closed discussions. If you disagree with the outcome, you may appeal the decision at deletion review. It would be better however, to remedy the problems with the article, post it to a test page in your user space, and ask that an admin review before reposting in article space. Thanks, Dloh cierekim 01:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]