Talk:Squarespace

Concerns

This page should actually be merged, the correct page should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squarespace

Also, re: "Does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" I would really like to make sure I'm within guidelines— how could I go about getting the Wikipedia community involved? I think it's a significant addition as there's pages for Tumblr, WordPress, SixApart, Blogger, EllisLab, etc. I'd really appreciate any help/feedback. :)

Krystynheide (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved -Selket ^Talk 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC). Selket ^Talk 00:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Square space → Squarespace

• The correct name for the article; Squarespace was apparently salted because of repeated recreation without meeting WP:N or WP:V, I don't really know. However, I believe the current iteration should meet muster. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Current article looks good enough to me. PC78 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• The deleted Squarespace edits are about the same commercial product that Square space describes. Delete as spam? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This version of the article clearly isn't speediable, so I'm assuming it's in significantly better shape than previous efforts; you're the admin so you tell us, since you can view the deleted content! :) PC78 (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
• Here is the latest deleted version "SquareSpace is a digital environment used for the creation and maintenance of user created websites. The company was founded in 2003 after founder Anthony Casalena was unable to find an efficient way to publish his website. Casalena, who has been developing web platforms since the age of fifteen and has a B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Maryland, was able to develop the platform in a few years. Since the companie's inception, it has blossomed into a product that powers thousands of websites.". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  As I interpret you, you're advocating deleting the article. Correct me if I'm wrong and disregard the following.

  First you mentioned deleting this "as spam". The only thing at Wikipedia:Spam that could apply for deletion would be WP:ARTSPAM which discusses "[b]latant examples of advertising masquerading as articles". I've put effort into this article to avoid any advertising connotations, and don't see how it could be construed as "spam".

  Your other concern appears to be that this is the recreation of a previously deleted article. WP:CSD#G4 is a criteria for recreated pages, but it requires "that [the article] was deleted per a deletion discussion", and that the new iteration be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Per your copy & paste, this current article is neither sufficiently identical to the deleted version, nor was it the subject of a deletion discussion, and I would certainly argue that it is "improved" (currently referencing 5–7 reliable sources, with more to come).

  Have I misunderstood either your stance or the Wikipedia policies/guidelines? The deleted articles that discussed this topic may have been advertisement spam, or they may have been unreferenced to reliable sources, however I don't think this specific article at this time suffers from either of those problems. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support the company meets WP:CORP IMO, past spamming shouldn't make a difference. This company is not called "square space" so it should be moved to "squarespace" ASAP. Smartse (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suggested Edit

The 'key_people' area may be pulling out of date information from an older article, as it does not match the order and titles of the company's official site: [1]

Should the board (also on the official site) be included? This could create some cross-reference links and help remove the orphan status from the page.

Krystynheide (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)