User talk:Ihegba

Welcome!

Hello, Ihegba, 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 Record (software), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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 this 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! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Record (software)

Here's what I'd do with the article:

Ask the deleting admin to restore the article into your userspace (e.g. User:Ihegba/Record (software)). If you ask and don't get a response, let me know, and I'll restore it.
Start a section on "Critical response". Make sure to list each review as a reference, and when you mention the titles of the reviewers' works, make sure to link to them if they have articles in Wikipedia. This makes it easier for editors to determine that the source is reliable. Make sure to present a balance picture of the review, e.g. (and these are totally bogus):
Reviews on the product have been generally favorable. Foo magazine called it "slow and clunky,"(ref) while Bar magazine said its user interface was best in class,(ref) and John Doe of Bat magazine said "I love it. I even use the coffeepot interface to make my breakfast in the morning!"(ref)
Remember that one of the goals is to demonstrate general notability: substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. If the review is a printed page or equivalent online length devoted just to the software, that's substantial. If it's not a press release or company/distributor web site, that's independent. If it's a magazine or website with a strong reputation (and not just somebody's blog), that's reliable.
Once it's improved, invite myself and some of the other participants in the AfD to review the article and comment on it. If no problems are identified have one of us move the article back to the main article space. (Why us and not you? The edit history will show that it was done by somebody else, which implicitly says the article was reviewed before it was recreated. If I move it, I'll also leave a detailed comment on the talk page stating explictly that I reviewed the article and it's improved from the AfD'ed version.)
Be prepared for the possibility of speedy deletion as a recreated article. However, the reviewers from step 4 will be able to indicate that it was different and help in the review of that speedy deletion.

Again, the key is to find the independent reviews. The more other people talk about the software, the easier it is to see that it's notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]