User talk:DataAnalyzer

Welcome!

Hello, DataAnalyzer, 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, like Total Access Statistics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

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 your user 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Total Access Statistics[edit]

A tag has been placed on Total Access Statistics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of FMS Inc.[edit]

A tag has been placed on FMS Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DanielRigal (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look here: the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Lectonar (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Total Access Statistics[edit]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Total Access Statistics, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Non-notable software product. Speedy declined as software is ineligible.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DanielRigal (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of FMS Inc.[edit]

A tag has been placed on FMS Inc. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Total Access Statistics[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Total Access Statistics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Access Statistics. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements[edit]

Only in advertisements do companies "provide solutions." In real life, they sell products or solutions, which may or may not perform satisfactorily. Any so-called "article" which says a company "provides solutions" is an advertisement begging for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be considered advertising. It's supposed to be descriptive per references from other organizations. The phrase "provide solutions" did not exist in the deleted page, so why was that used as the criteria for deletion? DataAnalyzer (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "creates/created... solutions" occurred no less than three times in a tiny article. That's advertisement-speak. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be phrased to avoid being tagged as advertising? I've seen plenty of articles mentioning, Microsoft creates this or that, Oracle built this or that, but wouldn't consider it advertising. Should the word "built" or "developed" be used instead of "create"? Would be happy to rephrase. FMS should have a simple description that's based on its work which is supported by lots of references. Thanks for your feedback. DataAnalyzer (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "solutions" is not a neutral term, but rather one peculiar to advertising. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is very confusing. At first, the article was contested for saying "provide solutions" when it didn't. Then it was for phrases saying the company creates solutions. Now, it appears you're saying "create" is okay, but "solution" can't be used. What words can be used to describe what a company does without it being considered advertising? DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion of Total Access Statistics[edit]

Hello, DataAnalyzer. I deleted the article at the consensus of its AfD discussion. If you believe my decision was inappropriate, feel free to list it at WP:DRV. Regards, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because our notability guidelines require significant coverage in reliable sources. I am listed in many reviewed works: the phone directory at work, the college course selection guide for the classes I teach, even the phone book. These are trivial as is most product review type coverage. PCWorld covers thousands of products over the course of a year - not each is notable given it is mentioned (even liked) by such a publication. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree that your examples of references are not notable, and that not every product in PC World deserves to be on Wikipedia. However, this product is referenced and is part of many scientific studies over its 12 year existence. A few online scientific papers referencing it were provided from some pretty reliable and verifiable sources (National Academy of Sciences, Oxford University, NIH). References to a variety of online articles that reviewed the product over many years was also provided. There are many other references and citations on and off line. Total Access Statistics has a much deeper history and usage compared to the many other statistical analysis software products that are listed on Wikipedia: Comparison of statistical packages. Please clarify what it would take for this product to be considered acceptable in comparison. It's currently in active use in a variety of leading edge research. Thanks for your consideration.DataAnalyzer (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRV[edit]

I don't see how else I am supposed to close the DRV. The consensus is quite clear, and it says that it doesn't agree with you. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to overturn two expressions of consensus simply because you don't agree with it. —kur ykh 09:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]