234:. I undid quite a bit of Toddfast's canvassing of Zembly links to various articles, so I understand the part about conflict of interest, but that shouldn't color an assessment of the subject itself. I can say from experience dealing with other new articles that in terms of neutral point of view, this isn't a bad start. It could use some
147:
Hi Ronz: As someone involved with zembly, I recognize that there is the potential for a COI. However, with this in mind and to allay any concerns, I have written the base article based solely on factual information and from (I believe) a NPOV, and have added external references from noted media
148:
sources. I also want to point out that I am not trying to shill and have edited the article clearly as myself in good faith. My intent is to standardize the factual information about zembly from the beginning using what I know of the project, much like you can see in the
323:
While not direct copies of the press releases, yes, the sources Samuel Tan point are essentially rehashing the same information. That does not mean that independent commentary does not exist for the subject. If SitePoint piece I mentioned above doesn't work for you,
121:
152:
article. I hope that the content of the article can stand on its own, and if there are further suggestions for improving NPOV or allaying any concerns, please let me know.
235:
355:
of notability is not a deletion criteria except in the case of speedy deletion (which this doesn't qualify for as non-web-content software).
17:
301:
231:
132:
with the product, being the products creator. The product is in beta, and no sources have been offered to indicate it is notable.
282:
378:
36:
274:
88:
83:
227:
92:
377:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
75:
289:
325:
360:
297:
153:
52:
179:
171:
157:
363:
337:
318:
247:
210:
183:
161:
141:
57:
333:
243:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
266:
262:
129:
356:
293:
278:
314:
309:
Does anyone think these are anything more than just press releases with a few edits? --
273:
sources that prove notability. A quick search yields some relatively reliable sources:
201:
137:
49:
175:
329:
239:
109:
195:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
174:
yesterday. It is something new, and thus this explains why it is "not notable".
79:
310:
133:
223:
149:
71:
63:
371:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
351:
per the sources offered by Samuel Tan. As he says, lack of
238:, but I think that can be accomplished with a little work.
116:
105:
101:
97:
222:It's been around a little longer than that. It was
200:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
128:The creator and major editor of the article has a
230:, and was covered in a couple other places, like
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
381:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
283:another on an IT management site
1:
338:22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
319:16:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
58:07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
398:
364:00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
328:is a well-respected site.
275:an article on the Inquirer
248:18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
211:18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
184:04:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
162:03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
269:, and neither is lack of
142:15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
374:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
304:) 18:40, 8 August 2008
279:another on System News
170:Sun just published a
267:reason for deletion
228:showcased at OSCON
44:The result was
306:
292:comment added by
236:in-text citations
213:
55:
389:
376:
305:
286:
224:launched in June
208:
199:
197:
119:
113:
95:
53:
34:
397:
396:
392:
391:
390:
388:
387:
386:
385:
379:deletion review
372:
287:
202:
193:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
395:
393:
384:
383:
367:
366:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
326:O'Reilly Radar
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
215:
214:
198:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
165:
164:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
394:
382:
380:
375:
369:
368:
365:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
346:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
284:
280:
276:
272:
271:indication of
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
209:
207:
206:
196:
192:
191:
185:
181:
177:
173:
172:press release
169:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
146:
145:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
373:
370:
352:
348:
288:— Preceding
270:
258:
204:
203:
194:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
294:Samuel Tan
357:Olaf Davis
353:indication
265:is not a
232:SitePoint
205:Wizardman
50:Sjakkalle
302:contribs
290:unsigned
176:Raysonho
154:Toddfast
122:View log
54:(Check!)
330:Dancter
240:Dancter
89:protect
84:history
281:, and
226:, was
150:Popfly
130:WP:COI
117:delete
93:delete
72:Zembly
64:Zembly
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
361:Talk
349:Keep
334:talk
315:talk
311:Ronz
298:talk
259:Keep
244:talk
180:talk
158:talk
138:talk
134:Ronz
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
46:keep
263:COI
359:|
336:)
317:)
300:•
285:.
277:,
261:-
246:)
182:)
160:)
140:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
48:.
332:(
313:(
296:(
242:(
178:(
156:(
136:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.