User talk:64.185.24.92

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Geany

Hi. I picked up on your problem with the deletion of the article Geany, a branded text editor-based application, according to Google.

An article on text editors as a type of software is probably notable and acceptable, although a little Wiktionaryish. An article on the company or group of companies who produce Geany, plus perhaps other items also, if found to be notable in the public domain, may also qualify for an article as encyclopedic. Regarding individual products of this kind which already do have an article in Wikipedia, "Notepad", for instance, qualifies as one of (if not the) first text editing software tools to be developed in the computer age, and gains notability for that reason alone, coupled perhaps with links to its parent company, Microsoft. However, unless Geany really does have ground-breaking and unique characteristics, it will not survive deletion (as it appears not to have).

The other consideration which you have already alluded to is the suspicion that an article might be promotion or advertising. You must admit to a fervent support for Geany, otherwise you would not have campaigned on its behalf against deletion. You state that you are not directly connected to the company who produce it. However, your defence of the deleted article may constitute a kind of conflict of interest. Quoting the relevant line: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I have highlighted the last part of the sentence to show that you do not necessarily have to be an employee or owner of the product to be implicated in a conflict of interest issue.

Please note that I do not accuse anyone of anything in bringing this to your notice. I am merely trying to help you see a broader issue with your commitment to Geany. I hope you will have happy future editing. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any edits, please ignore this message.
Hi again, Rob. I understand your frustration; there are indeed useful lists of this and that in Wikipedia, masquerading as articles mainly, but their inclusion has always been contentious, on points of notability mainly. Moderate lists started off being approved as a small part of a parent article, progressing from there to become articles containing just a list of notable items, such as the List of social networking websites, and proven as notable by each entry in the list being linked to its Wikipedia article (thus controversially transferring notability from the item to the list itself, although notability by association is normally a big no-no here).
I too have favourite subjects in life which I think would deserve an article. However, I realise that I shouldn't get involved in the creation or expansion of such articles (unless I believed that I could truly approach the subject from a neutral point of view, and that's more difficult sometimes than you think).
Thanks for your good-natured reply - some editors might take exception at "interference" from another editor. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 02:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any edits, please ignore this message.