User talk:Scottwrites
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Twing
I have made my concerns known on the talk page. I ususally trust my instncts, but in fairness, I carefully reviewed your article. Based on the information presented and my findings listed on the talk page, I am taking this article to AfD. You can address the concerns there, and of course you can continue to work to improve the article and bring it into conformity with Wikipedia standards, noting improvements in the AfD discussion, which may or may not change people's opinions. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Twing
An editor has nominated Twing, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Twing Article Deletion Question
You wrote: You recently deleted an article on Twing. In the discussion, there seemed to be some valid reasons for considering such an action. However, I thought I had addressed them, and posted the reasoning in the article's talk page. The talk page was deleted as well, but I saved a copy and I'll put that info in below, since it's unclear as to where as to do so other than . The thing is, the talk page addressed the issues of concern and there didn't seem to be any further discussion or reasoning behind deletion taking such things into account. It's possible this information wasn't considered. I'd intentionally put it in the talk page as I thought I was following instructions saying not to edit the discussion page, and it's premature to head for Wikipedia:Deletion review since there was no real discussion. In fact, the whole process is a bit over complicated, but it is what it is I suppose. In any case, I'll put the defense info below. If it's not accepted, what that tells me is that there's a fair amount or arbitrary application of the rules and I should instead suggest a bunch of other articles for deletion that seem to be much more in violation of the same rule sets you described for Twing.
- See WP:SOFIXIT. Feel free to tag articles that you do not feel meet up with Wikipedia's stated standards. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Original defense.
- Re: the Links concern: I have updated them to link properly.
- Re: References Concern
- The references concerning search engine theory, (for example Pirolli's book), mention hardly any particular engines. And are even light on examples of specific practical academic projects. They focus on the math. They're just theory for the most part; of which Twing is merely an illustration. But a reader curious as to the underpinnings of the theory behind the product's technology might be interested in this depth. In fact, it's what's notable about Twing. That it's attempting to use these concepts.
-
-
- References must establish points in the article, especially notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Notability: I've added links to articles from reputable sources indicating that others of note see this as valuable new stuff. Ironically, I'd left such links out as I'd thought them to be overly commercial as I want to focus on the theory/science, etc. and when I have time would like to add more in that regard. The reason it's notable is because it's the only specialty search going across this content vertical using this kind of advanced filtering. Not only tons of value from a marketing/user perspective, but an example of how to use advanced filtering technology to disambiguate search results in social media spaces. That is the part that's interesting.
-
- Notability here is reference to Wikipedia's notability criteria for web content and Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations and companies. It's not as widely subjective as is inferred above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Commercial/General Concerns/Fairness: Obviously, this is a commercial product. But it's not just a mashup of someone else's search fodder. The product is applying new concepts and new technology in original ways across an often ignored online social space. When one looks at some of the "me too" listings in List_of_search_engines, it would be all but unconscionable that something new like Twing.com wouldn't make the cut without seriously re-working that entire area as well. Again, if it doesn't genuinely belong here, feel free to tag it as such to allow other editors to pick up on it and review your concerns. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the Vertical search article needs a ton of work, and I hope to get to that as well. (It's focused primarily on business vertical - which has value - but doesn't really break down the differences in vertical.) But... that's another article for another time.
Scottwrites (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion was open for 5 days; you were invited to participate in the discussion at that time. If you would like a deletion review, please feel free to utilize that feature. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
