Marjeta42

Speedy deletion nomination of Git client

Hello Marjeta42,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Git client for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. You had no in-line references at all. There was a bare url at the bottom, that seemed to link to a forum/blog page, not a proper source.
• There is no indication of why any of these meet the notability criteria, such as verifiable downloads, sales or discussion in acceptable third-party sources as linked above
• The content, in particular the comments, is either original research, your personal views, or copied from an unknown source. None of these are acceptable
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: The design feels quite clean with a very pleasing (and easy on the eyes) dark theme. Everything feels in place and is pretty easy to find and understand even at a glance. — and similar unsourced promotional content for the others
• the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
• If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for any involved company, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the company you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Marjeta42. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Marjeta42|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a copy of deleted article? I could rewrite it and fix the problems. Marjeta42 (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest whatsoever. Possibly I didn't include enough references, which could be fixed, given a chance. The "promotional tone" was a direct quote from an article. Possibly I didn't clearly indicate it was a quote. Marjeta42 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Impractical sorting algorithms has been nominated for discussion

Category:Impractical sorting algorithms has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)