User talk:Goflow6206

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Copyright policy

Wikipedia's policies prohibit use of copyrighted works that do not fall under fair use, unless the author explicitly releases them to the GFDL or public domain. Also, since Wikipedia is not a press release, permission to be used in press releases is irrelevant anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was not a copy of the press release. It was a simply a DESCRIPTION of the organization similar to the DESCRIPTION of the organization that appears at the bottom of a press release.

In any case, fair use means a small extraction, and the page was by no means a copy of the press release. In fact, the subject of the page was really nothing about the press release at all. Only the description of the organization was similar.

The description of the organization was copied from the site... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that site was not the source, it was itself a copy from text which was specifically made available by the coalition for use in purposes such as this. But I will edit it to assure that there is no question.

[edit] Workflow...

• Honestly, I would delete that article, too. I'm not familiar with business models, and I don't really know any other WP editors who are. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I completely rewrote it so that it is no longer the same as any other page on the internet. But I don't even care. Workflow Management Coalition was in the middle of most of the standards that exist today. There is a very interesting study done at Steven's Institute about the role that the coalition played in the history of distributed systems.

• • Well, if an admin judges it to be notable, they'll remove the tag. 'Til then, you should try to clean the article up a bit and rewrite it so it sounds less like an ad. Regards, Danny Lilithborne 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Workflow Management Coalition

The article Workflow Management Coalition has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for 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. Gwernol 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Workflow Management Coalition (WfMC) is a legitimate consortium which has had a defining effect on the information technology industry over the last 13 years. There are 300 member organizations spread across the world. There are local chapters in Japan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, Korea, and a number of other place. The standards are incorportated into dozens of commercial products, as well as a dozen or so open source workflow systems. There are many academic paper written on the subject of the subjects of comparing research implementations to the WfMC reference architecture.

Why is it notable?

Thank you for the reply. I don't think you've read the links I left above. Let me boil this down. Please read WP:CORP. This is our guidelines on what makes a corporate entity (including non-profit organizations) notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Please look at the specific criteria listed in that guideline. You need to show how WMC meets one or more of these criteria. You do that by adding citations of reliable sources to the article. As I wrote above: if you can provide such citations you are welcome to recreate the article as long as it includes the citations.

By the way, the defense that "there are worse articles on Wikipedia" is never useful to you. Sadly with over 1.5 million articles and thousands being created each day there will always be some articles that don't meet our rules. That is not an excuse for allowing your article to break those rules. I will look at the articles you cite and propose those for deletion if they do not meet our standards. You can do the same yourself.

This is not a spam issue, the issue is you need to show that your organization is notable by our standards. By the sound of it, you should not have too much trouble doing so. There must be independent articles out there on WMC? Good luck, Gwernol 00:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(I did not delete your message. I put it at the bottom of the page. It does ask you to do that on my talk page, and it would have been polite of you to do that)

Your note on your userpage is offensive and factually incorrect. I have already told you that we do not tolerate blatant advertising on Wikipedia and if you bring articles that are advertising to our notice we will take action. I have also told you that your article was deleted because it failed to show why WMC was notable, not because it was advertising. Please read the advice above before making groundless accusations. Gwernol 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I know that you deleted it because of lack of (CSD:A7 - no assertion of notability) but it was deleted just before that because of this: 22:22, 6 January 2007 Pilotguy (Talk | contribs) deleted "Workflow Management Coalition" (Deleting page - reason was: "Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11" using NPWatcher) Please check the delete log if you disagree.