User talk:Tylercraig85

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Xivio, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --McGeddon 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xivio

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Xivio, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. McGeddon 20:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

There is no affiliation with myself or Xivio.com, nor has there ever been. I am a software developer and am simply able to judge technical achievement. Xivio is a notable site because it has pulled off something considered very difficult to do in Flash Player plugin. tylercraig85 5:28 PM, 21 July 2007 (EST)

A "prod for deletion" is as much a call to have the article improved, as a request for its removal. If you can provide a couple of reliable sources that write about it, then it's worth expanding into a full article.

Are you the Tyler Craig that owns wontbemissed.com? The site has a link to Xivio in its footer (with "hehe" in brackets), which seems a strange coincidence. --McGeddon 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wontbemissed notes Xivio under a list titled "Sites that don't Suck" The "hehe" is for the obvious contrast between the tone (and color) of the two sites. How is this a strange coincidence? I happened to put a link up somewhere?

What kind of resources would you consider a reliable one? This article is describing a technical achievement. It is not "advertising" as a previous user used as reason for deleting the original article. It does not describe any features that their target audience would be drawn to (what 15 year old girl knows what ActionScript 2.0 is?)

I am just completely floored that it is this difficult to publish this article on Wikipedia.

Tylercraig85 00:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just a fan, that's fine.

I see that the article's been deleted by an administrator since yesterday - WP:RS gives full details on the types of sources that are considered reliable, and WP:WEB defines how notability relates to web sites. Basically it comes down to "two or more newspaper or academic articles that discuss the site in some detail".

Looking at my browser history, you were citing http://blog.humlab.umu.se/?p=466 as your academic source? The only reference this makes to Xivio is to mention it in a bulleted list of six unreleased or recently-launched 3D chat environments. WP:WEB specifically rules out sources which only give "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site".

It's difficult to add an article about a shakily-sourced website, and that's generally a good thing, as Wikipedia gets a lot of people trying to advertise their own company or website here. But if a website is genuinely and undeniably notable, it's trivial for someone to respond to a proposed deletion with a bit of Googling and "oh, okay, here's a New York Times article". --McGeddon 10:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]