User talk:Salman.sarfraz
November 2007
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Aspose. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article did not have any sources to show why the company is notable. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Microsoft website's mention of Aspose is still insufficient for notability's sake. It only says the company makes certain software, but nothing much more. For an organisation / company to be notable, there would need to be sources that discuss the company in detail, i.e. more than just one/two sentences and a download link. I have done my Google searching and it appears that such detailed coverage of Aspose is lacking. [1] Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I would be very glad when you guys will qualify me to create that short information page about Aspose. -- you are already qualified to write whatever you please on Wikipedia. However, if the content violates Wikipedia policies on verifiability and Notability, everyone else is qualified to nominate it for deletion. :-) Good luck finding good sources so you can recreate the article!--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
More Notable Sources for Aspose
[edit]Hi,
I found two more notable sources about Aspose.
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/dotnet/Word2Help.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salman.sarfraz (talk • contribs) 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Blogs and self-published sources are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
These are NOT self-published sources. That's why i am sharing with you and these are good sources. Check them out carefully.
- I did check them. The CodeProject link states at the top "This is an unedited reader contribution", which I'm pretty sure would be equated with "self-published", even if it's not explicitly covered in the link above.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
Little update, the URL of CodeProject article i shared with you is changed to http://www.codeproject.com/KB/office/Word2Help.aspx . Moreover, Unedited Reader Contribution doesn't mean Self-Published Article. If you check this term explained here: http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/Unedited.aspx , you will see that all articles that are submitted to www.Codeproject.com through their submission wizard gets this status and with the passage of time, they move it to other specific categories based upon their popularity. Anyways, i just found it and shared with you as it is.
I want to share another notable source with you that i just found. Please check it too: http://www.builderau.com.au/program/soa/First-Look-Aspose-Excel/0,339024614,339131440,00.htm This website is owned by ZDNet and this page seems 2-3 years older. I hope, you will consider it too as a notable source. Salman.sarfraz (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)