User talk:RoryBecker
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit! We're funded by charitable donations, carry no advertising and are thus unsuitable for companies to use as free advertising space. After all, that would be stealing from a charity, which is not a reputation any company wishes to have. But one a company could get by accident!
So we police our newest articles to make sure that companies are not accidentally stealing money for server space from a not-for-profit foundation that seeks to expand the sum of human knowledge and hopes one day to put a laptop in every Third World school.
You may have suffered from this, by posting details of your products, services or company to our website. Those details looked like pure advertising to one or more of our editors. Because we know you value your reputation, we redirected the articles to somewhere more useful. If your addition is relevant and not a sales device, you might like to edit the article that the redirects were directed at.
If you were advertising, then we're sorry. But perhaps you can find other outlets for your unsolicited advertising? Thanks! ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Deletion
[edit]Hi RoryBecker! Wikipedia gets thousands of new articles everyday. Hundreds of these are nonsense, spam, attack pages or just not encyclopedic. We are, after all, an encyclopedia, and not a random collection of information. So we have certain requirements for inclusion and exclusion.
For instance, article subjects must be notable in and of themselves. If a subject has no independent life outside of another subject, then it can't have an article. It can be mentioned inside another article, assuming it has any notability at all, but cannot exist outside of that article if a stand-alone article would exist purely to create notability for the subject.
In other words, a product or service must be already known and talked about elsewhere before it can be included in its own right. And not just on fora: it needs to be talked about in places of particular note where people are paid by a third party to talk about it.
A plug-in, on that basis, is not notable for an encyclopedia. And the article itself was unable to assert notability for the product. IF the product had been on the front of the New York Times or in the pages of the Manchester Guardian, it would have been able to say so in the first sentence. It wasn't able to. Ergo, it wasn't important. Ergo, it doesn't qualify for an encyclopedia.
So, what can you do now? Well, you could start by writing a nice section for the parent article, Microsoft Visual Studio, about the range of plug-ins available for that program. Name the salient points of each, their pros (and their cons, including your own product) and the appropriate competition for each one. That type of information has (limited) usefulness to us. Your product will be amongst many. You should include links to third-party sites that mention the product, its capabilities and so forth.
If, however, you just want to advertise your product, then you need to pay Google. We're not able to help. Get out your credit card and go there.
And, before you ask, yes, I dare say other products mentioned on Wikipedia have been noticed by you that don't fit the above. But the inclusion of one article doesn't require the inclusion of another. If you object to another page, you must ask for it to be deleted through the proper channels. Its presence or otherwise has no effect on your own articles.
Hope this all helps! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of CodeRush
[edit]
The article CodeRush has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- No indepedent references
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Coderush (disambiguation)
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Coderush (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
- disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
- disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —KuyaBriBriTalk 03:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CodeRush until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.