Talk:Novas Software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All I'm trying to create is a fair corporation entry. If you take a look at the content I wrote (thus far) for the entry, it contains no sort of advertisement or anything. The ONLY REASON why I'm creating this article is because I see entries for corporations and feel as though Novas Software warrants their own.

Why do I feel as though they deserve an unbiased and fair entry? Because they're a major player in the EDA industry. Novas is, in fact, the sixth most used EDA vendor [1]. Many other EDA industry companies have entries, such as Mentor Graphics and Synplicity. In fact, Synplicity is the fifth most used EDA vendor - only one company above Novas Software!

Why would this entry have been marked so early as a spam entry? As it currently stands, there isn't one single word that warrants that distinction.

I would like to really discuss, before anyone decides whether or not to delete this entry, why this article is being considered for deletion. Again, I'm just trying to create an unbiased informative entry for Novas. Let's please get a discussion going. And I would really encourage users to read this, to read how the entry was going to start, to read how Novas is indeed significant enough to warrant an entry, before passing any judgement. And I would be extremely happy if some fellow Wikipedians watched the Novas entry page and tag it for deletion whenever it's bordering any sort of spam entry. But as of right now, I don't think it is. And it won't be.

Let's have a discussion about this.

Dear Amplifychristian, I am not a particularly experienced user and I normally only add speedy delete tags when the user who created the page has no apparent previous history and just seems to me to be trying something on. Somehow I failed to notice that you have an extensive and reliable contributions history, so I apologise if I jumped the gun. As the article now no longer seems to exist (I presume it has already been deleted?) I am struggling to be very specific, but it simply seemed to me to be a brief article about a company that lacked obvious notability, the principle aim of which seemed to be to direct users to its own website. There may be many such articles, and perhaps I have misunderstood how {db:spam} is supposed to work. I certainly don't hold a strong opinion about this as a specific subject (although I am appalled at how much drivel finds its way into Wikipedia, even if a lot of it does not last long). Ben MacDui Talk 20:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it was brief article when it was deleted because I wanted to build upon a solid foundation (i.e. company history & overview). I'm going to ahead and recreate the entry at where it was before the delete (or as much as I can, since I didn't keep any of the copy...). I would appreciate it if you were to watch the entry and, if you have comments or concerns about anything, let me know.--Christian B 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)