Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Loadstar. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. NellieBly (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that an article you worked on, LoadStar Global, may be copied from http://loadstarglobal.com/solutions.html. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.
It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.
Speedy deletion nomination of LoadStar Global
A tag has been placed on LoadStar Global, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Happysailor (Talk) 21:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello Nickcova. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. - Happysailor (Talk) 21:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The page LoadStar Global has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes something, and which is unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of LoadStar Global
A tag has been placed on LoadStar Global, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think that your page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Status and Advice
I remains promotional, with no demonstration of importance. and I tagged it again. Three different administrators have now deleted it. First of all , the need is to show this particular company notable, not the general technology of securing RFID as used in ocean transport. The extensive discussion of the general subject is not to the point, and serves only as advertising for the company's products and patents. Second, that their parent company is notable, does not make them notable. Perhaps you mean to say that it has been the company developing the technology, and the leading or only company selling it. If so, you must prove it with 3rd party sources. That a firm has patents, does not show they are valid, and only 3rd party reliable sources can show it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding and providing feedback. My first comment would be that the original article from Jan. 2012 -- and the subsequent editor deletions and feedback -- are not particularly relevant to the current article. I would be the first to admit that the initial attempt at the article was not in-line with the objectives of WP; something that I immediately understood once the feedback was provided. In contrast, the current article was written and structured modeling similar articles that appear throughout WP for corporations.
Therefore, it seems that the big question is related to the importance. Qualitatively, one could say that the LoadStar team were the first to make commercially available products for intermodal shipment security using advanced wireless technologies. And that the LoadStar team were the ones that essentially proved that to the world -- both commercial entities and governments. All the participants in the industry would vouch for that fact. However, there is nothing independently cite-able to state that, unless people were interviewed. The commercial contracts are confidential information, as is the work with the Japanese, S. Korea, Chinese, Panamanian, US, Netherlands, UK, Colombian, etc. -- governments.
That being said, what is public information are the patents. The patent examiner is tasked with evaluating all the "prior art" and determining what inventions were first and what is novel.
If one believes that securing the intermodal supply chain -- which includes the vast majority of the food supply, pharmaceuticals, and most everything else tangible that we use/consume -- then surely the fact that US and international patent examiners say that the LoadStar team's inventions were first makes them important in the field. To me that seems more objective, and with greater authority, then e.g. a journalist writing an article on the subject. We all know too many corporations that pay for articles to be written that make them sound better than they are.
I look forward to receiving your comments on this. Thanks.