Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dynamic Software

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Only one editor is interested in this subject other than its author, who is intimately tied to the subject and has made virtually all the edits to it. The article is still biased and lacking sources. If an uninvolved editor chooses to rework it later, fine, but for now this is being 'deleted because it is advertorial. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Software

Dynamic Software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Spammy article by WP:SPA. Deleted as non-notable / advertorial, userfied, and speedily moved back to mainspace by the original creator. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: * the creator is User:Akc9000, AKC is listed as one of dynamic software's corporate domains, the contact name is Al, User:Akc9000 says on his user page that he is Al. This link says it all. So: this article is self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• There is a conflict of interest, however is that always evil (Not rhetorical, I'm actually asking)? I feel there's some potential here as it appears to have its place in pay-per-click history, assuming the unreferenced statements I've tagged can be resolved. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me too. Propose delete. --Gavin Collins 12:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gavin, I just started re-writing this article one day ago and reposted it last night. It is my sandbox and is redirecting here. Admins saw the old article as not having enough info. I did the redirect so that I could get input on the proper writing of this; Now you say it looks spammy. Could you suggest a way to improve the article instead of suggesting it to be deleted? I never get things correct this way. I want to write a good article. There is good deal of software this company produced and I would think it should be included in Wiki. I would appreciate help not, suggesting it for deletion, the article is currently being expanded upon and not even complete.

I wrote this looking using the Microsoft article as an example, so if you think this is spammy, would you say the same about the Microsoft article?

Thanks! akc9000 5/27/07 9:35am Eastern Time.

Comment- The wording and tone of the article appear biased. It uses a lot of praise qualifiers in its text. Also, I see it has 2 primary sources, and 2 secondary sources, yet those sources arent cited in the text, they're just mentioned (and nearly impossible for a reader to verify, as the secondary sources do not contain links to content). A good way to do sources in an article is to place a <ref>{{cite web}}</ref>, or whichever template you wish to use, inline after the material that needs citation, and then add <references /> in the references section and it will link them there with footnotes automatically. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

wizzard2k - I used your example for the references, thank you. Your method works much better.

I also tried to change the tone of the History so it does not appear to be bias. I did not intend it to appear that way. I just noted one of thier products won awards. I removed some of the reference.

I hope I addressed your concerns. If you have any other suggestions please let me know. This is my first wiki article, maybe I should have started with a different topic. --Akc9000 03:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

JzG - This article was removed and placed in my sandbox. I worked on it and copied it back into the NameSpace, even before I had time to write a discussion page to ask for advise you nominated it for deletion. It was my first article and I have been trying to not only write it but understand how wiki works. I would appreciate help with it instead of it being deleted. I believe I have addressed the issues. --Akc9000 03:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep- Article looks much better, and the author shows a genuine willingness to improve. Some additional sources have been provided to prove its notability, and with a few more, I think it should be just fine. -wizzard2k ^(C•T•D) 01:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.