User talk:MarcoDFW/AutomaticBackup.Frigerio-ar

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I think this nomination is an error as I followed same format and even less promotional material than pages listed in List of backup software and they are not nominated, also I think it is unfair as I followed the same content than others than clearly promote even more their products, see the full list here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_backup_software

now in the case of my page I followed the same format and information than Cobian Backup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobian_Backup and his page is not nominated??? he also has a comment in the first line donation-supported backup software with a picture and full description of features?

To name few, why these software pages are not nominated?

• Bacula
• DirSync Pro
• Areca Backup
• DAR (Disk Archiver), I can continue but I guess you get the point!

the list is long, if you go to the List of backup software you might have to nominate all of them!!! they all exhibit clear example of self promotion.

My software is FREE and open source! I'm not looking for any kind of revenue more than contributing with the internet community! I don't have a donation button as the software is free now, tomorrow and not a change of even a donation link! MarcoDFW (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the title including ".com" was what tipped a csd, which made it appear that it was promoting a website. One question: is this "your" software, or is it a piece of open source software you are writing about in general that you have no connections with whatsoever? It would look like a reasonable article if those concerns were addressed. Just my 2 cents. Thebestofall007 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

MarcoDFW, I understand that. Could it be possible to send me a note change the title instead of deleting the whole thing? or asking why the title needs to be like that? is it still going to be deleted?

I've deleted the two versions with different titles - we only like one copy of an article to be up. In answer to your query, the other pages you list are irrelevant - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They might bear a closer look, or they might actually show notability. Not everything gets an article. If you get better referencing (better than a page that doesn't even seem to mention your thing...), maybe. If this goes the way of all flesh (and a lot of software), find better refs and contact me to have it exhumed for reviving. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

MarcoDFW, I guess this is the point where I have to accept right. Before that, if I may, my page was done copying the source code of Cobian Backup so pardon my short sight, but I still find hard time to see how mine gets flagged and his not. In any case, that is water under the bridge. Is there a change if you kindly un-flag my page, and I promise I work with you or WIKI to get the page to the point is worth to have it? Could this be a possibility? Again, I mentioned I'm persuing any promotion just to be next to the other boys in List of backup software and have the same opportunity. MarcoDFW (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear WIKI sorry to be so persistant, in your flag criteria you mentioned, "because in its current form it serves only to promote an entity, person or product" and and I said in my explanation above other in the List of backup software have been even more promotional material. Again, excuse me if I'm coming back to this so much, but I'm having a hard time to understand what am I doing wrong, thus. How can I make it better? Thanks in advance, I hope we can resolve this and more importantly I can learn something for my next article. MarcoDFW (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Peridon, I have modified a bit the page. Could you please check if my references? MarcoDFW (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)