User talk:Tradingcalc
Welcome!
Hello, Tradingcalc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Fragulator
[edit]Thanks for your question about your deleted article - I will answer here within a day. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the article was not written in an overtly promotional style, but the amount of detail made it seen more like a product catalogue item than an encyclopedia article. There is also the question of notability - the way Wikipedia decides what subjects are suitable for articles is not to judge ourselves what is significant or important, but to ask, have other people, independent of it, thought it interesting and important enough to write about? The guideline's words require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anything newly-developed is likely to have difficulty passing that test, and at a quick look I only found a couple of news reports, independent of Fidessa, that mentioned the Fragulator.
My advice would be, write a much less detailed description, with a link to where detail can be found for those interested, and add it to the Fidessa article. Be careful to make it drily factual and not promotional-sounding. If, in due course, it takes off and attracts independent comment, then it could be split off into a stand-alone article; but that should still be a general description rather than a detailed specification.
Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)