User talk:Twikir
Leonard Development Group
[edit]The article Leonard Development Group has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.
Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn 01:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article said "Leonard Development Group was founded by Thomas Leonard. The company's most successful product was the TML Pascal Compiler which operated on the Apple II and Apple Macintosh." I don't know why you think that makes the company look notable. All it says is that there was a company, founded by a person, and there most successful product was a piece of software. It doesn't even cite any sources. What you are saying now, about it being the most popular something for a certain time, is new to me. Please provide proof that this company or its software has recieved coverage from multiple, independent, reliable, non trivial sources, as explained at WP:NOTE. J Milburn 02:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I explained above, the article did not assert the notability of the subject. Please explain to me why this company meets the guidelines laid out at WP:CORP, and provide sources. J Milburn 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOTE and WP:ATT are two of the most basic and important Wikipedia policies. Your problem seems to be with the policies, not with my interpretation of them. If you believe that subjects do not have to be proven to be notable and that articles do not have to be referenced, then please go and challenge the policies, not banter with me. However, I very, very much doubt that you will have any success. J Milburn 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- The reason I 'ignored' your initial sources was because they were too vague. 'Just Google it' and 'there's stuff in old magazines' doesn't quite cut it. As for the new ones; they are great. Please assume good faith; do you really think I am ignorant enough to believe that I personally know about everything that deserves a place on Wikipedia? Of course not. Feel free to recreate the article, but remember to cite your sources so that there is no doubt that the subject you are talking about is notable. Thanks for having the patience to work with the Wikipedia system, I know it can be quite tedious for newcomers at times. J Milburn 11:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOTE and WP:ATT are two of the most basic and important Wikipedia policies. Your problem seems to be with the policies, not with my interpretation of them. If you believe that subjects do not have to be proven to be notable and that articles do not have to be referenced, then please go and challenge the policies, not banter with me. However, I very, very much doubt that you will have any success. J Milburn 01:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- As I explained above, the article did not assert the notability of the subject. Please explain to me why this company meets the guidelines laid out at WP:CORP, and provide sources. J Milburn 21:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)