User talk:NawlinWiki/Archive 52: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:10, 11 February 2011

This talk page is archived every month (if I remember). The older pages are indexed at User talk:NawlinWiki/Archives.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~).

Wondering why your article was speedily deleted? Check this list first.

Do you want to move a page that I've move-protected? Discuss the move first on the article's talk page. If there's a consensus for the move, let me know and I'll unlock the page.

Please add all comments at the bottom of the page (or I may not be able to find them).

Update

NawlinWiki:

I have made some changes to the Capital Teas entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Levinep/Capital_Teas). Did some wording changes and removed a couple sources, while adding in another. Could you please look at it? If it is suitable, would your return it to a regular article or tell me I can? If not, please tell me how I can change it so that it can be an article. The reason given was of notability -- I think that if you check the sources given, you will indeed see that it is notable. Thank you for your time and effort on wikipedia.

Levinep (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion?

As long as I source everything I should be fine. I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habibz7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I noticed you blocked an IP for vandalising List of towns and villages in Northern Ireland, however the following IP address Special:Contributions/212.9.117.114 has been doing the same simuntaneously. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion???

Hi NawlinWiki,

I am wondering why my page "Capital Teas" was just deleted by you. I used accurate sources and it was grammatically correct -- for what reason(s) was it removed? I realize that I used the company's website as a source, which is not independent. Would you be able to return the page for me to edit that part out? Was there anything else specific that you used for reason to remove the page? I appreciate your work in monitoring this free site, and I'm sure you can understand my frustration after working to submit an article. I want the article to be accurate and useful for readers -- I would appreciate any help you could offer in creating this page. Please respond soon, thank you.

Levinep (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Why was my page submitted and deleted so quickly? I edited out the PR/Promotional language. I provided refernces to credible sources. I feel like every admin to this site just deletes people's work that takes them tons of time, without reading or researching the article. Please give me more detailed feedback--Mrspolo (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has taken you 4 times the amount of time to respond to my comment than the time it took you to delete it. And your note on my talk page said to refer to the criteria, specifically G11 regarding spam and promotion. Well it does say "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." I do not know how you could have read and researched my article in any detail in 4 minutes, which included the time it took to navigate, delete, and type on my talk. I just wish you would answer questions as fast as you exert authority.--Mrspolo (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. We're all volunteers here, and aren't logged on every minute. That said, the article I deleted is still full of promotional language, like:
- "the firm's leaders decided to build a stronger Process Plus, focused on customer satisfaction."
- "a commitment to client needs as the company’s top priority."
- "delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project."
- "Process Plus is well-respected"

NawlinWiki (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the firm's leaders decided to build a stronger Process Plus, focused on customer satisfaction."

A strategic business plan was created by the firm's leaders to focus on customer satisfaction

"a commitment to client needs as the company’s top priority."

this was the company's biggest strategic change after their founder died, but I guess it is unessesary.

"delivering project management solutions throughout all phases of the project."

this is fact, part of being a full-service enginerring firm, meaning from concept feasibility to construction and validation.

"Process Plus is well-respected"

this is the most subjective sentence, but it is justified by newspaper articles. i will remove this.

I apologize for my tone, but not everyone saves everything they put on their first article. I feel like the above note was needed to justify its deletion. How do I go about making these changes or getting my page published live? --Mrspolo (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will move the page back to your userspace for you to work on it further. Please note that the company's own website is not an *independent* source, and therefore shouldn't be used as a reference for the article. See WP:RS. In general, it still seems to be difficult for you to want to remove promotional language (for example - whether or not the firm's leaders decided to "focus on customer satisfaction", that kind of statement just doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia article), so please be extra careful about that. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. As for the customer satisfaction, as an engineer, client satisfaction is the most impoortant factor because it determines repeat business. In the industry it is known as quality or quality management since clients are satified based on quality work, but that seems more promotional to me. Are both these terms incorrect?--Mrspolo (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that there are very many companies that don't try to satisfy their customers or perform quality work. For purposes of an encyclopedia, what we want to know is "why is this company notable?" See WP:CORP. The fact that a company is pursuing quality doesn't make it notable, and isn't really a helpful fact in an encyclopedia article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, and thank you for the help. This whole online-encylopedia, especially wiki's regulations, are brand new to me. I appeciate your time and patience throughout this.

should I leave the line describing the full-ervice aspect of engineering, "delivering management solutions thoughout all phases", or would I need to add the statement "from the conception phase to the contruction phase"? That is what differentiated them from competitors.
Should I remove the references to the company's 'Our History'or just the refernces to them in the article? I do not need to delete the content in the article do I?
Do I delete this section I added to your talk page?--Mrspolo (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)--Mrspolo (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It's not enough for the article to state what the company thinks differentiates itself, or what you think makes them special. You need to find independent sources (see WP:V) that recognize them as notable. (2) The "Our history" doesn't add to notability - again, this is coming from the company, not an independent source. Try acting as if you didn't personally know anything about the company, and had to depend entirely on third-party sources. If you can't write an article that way, it probably means that the company shouldn't have an article here just yet. Remember, Wikipedia is not a directory of all businesses. It's a tertiary source, which means we report only on subjects that other, independent sources have found to be notable. And no need to blank this discussion - it might help other users. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paullees (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Paullees (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Hi I am involved with Powwownow. Paullees (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC) I would like to expand the stub entry and highlight some sources to establish Cannot save entry here - will put on discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullees (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amends to Dentures Page

(This message from new Justin stewart uk (talk · contribs) was for some reason blocked by the edit filter as a personal attack. I have copied it on here. JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

PS:This user was formerly Thedentureclinic (talk), soft-username-blocked as a role account by Wifione and invited to set up a new individual account). JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NawlinWiki

Thank you for your input on the amends previously made to the dentures page, it is appreciated. I would like to get something on Wikipedia about 3D dentures - this is a recent technique that has been used around the world - my clinic is the 1st in the UK to use this techonlolgy - would it be advisable to first set up a page dedicated to 3D dentures? There are a number of articles here than mention it that I believe would pass the notability guidelines:

Please advise as the best way to add content onto Wikipdia re: 3D dentures

Regards, justin_stewart_uk

It's not a good idea to write about your own business or what it does, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cort and Fatboy Show

Sorry, I'm terribly confused. When you say "No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content", why wouldn't the forwardly-stated fact that they host a podcast be significance enough? Centrifuze (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a podcast that meets the notability standards of WP:WEB, as established by reliable independent sources per WP:V. The listing of "all the people we'd like to thank" doesn't help. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" Wouldn't it meet the criteria via the online broadcast distributed by Cascadia.fm? Also, that last section, the listing, was a work in progress, in which I was calling for public help via my Facebook page for completion by other C&FB fans. Centrifuze (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is Cascadia.fm notable per WP:WEB? NawlinWiki (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you've got me on that one. Can I ask how you a page such as The Mediocre Show stays on the site just fine, as Cort and Fatboy are in the same wheelhouse, and knowing what it is that makes The Mediocre Show stand out should give me the clarity I need to validate Cort and Fatboy. Centrifuze (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediocre Show cites independent sources referencing it. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perfect, that was all that I needed. Thank you so much, I appreciate it. Can I bother you to post the deleted page on my talk page please? Centrifuze (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NawlinWiki

I hope you go home of if you are at home that you think of taking a shower or a bath.

Me thinks with the brain in my head that you need a good shower and to find a meaningful purpose other than deleting pages in life.

Sincerely & yours truly, etc...,

Rui Gabirro

"I detest stupidity!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabirro (talk • contribs) 18:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Filter

NawlinWiki, I was discussing some issues we have around naming of Indian locations in articles with User:Dougweller and one of the things we came up on was an edit filter to possibly prevent and/or notify, and he suggested that I check with you. The problem revolves around official name changes that are proposed but not yet complete and also replacing common names with preferred variants. e.g. In the former category, we have multiple articles currently calling Orissa as Odisha or Bangalore as Bengaluru when the changes haven't been completed, and the original names are still valid. In the latter category is preferred spelling which includes changes like Hogenakkal to Hogenakkalam and so on. Is it possible to create edit filters to prevent something like this based on a list? Alternately, at least flag it in the edit summary as a dubious change or something? With the number of name changes in India, this is becoming a perennial problem and also transliteration from different languages produce different English spellings, while we strive to use the actual Indian English spelling. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly do a filter that flags edits adding non-preferred spellings, although it won't do anything about spelling variations that already exist. Given that these edits are not really vandalism, I'd be hesitant to block them, but they could be flagged. Let me know if/when you come up with a list of names that you would like flagged. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That should work, at least it would highlight the issue with NPPs. We had this discussion almost a year back at WT:INB, but no one ever got to doing anything since and luckily I had the convo with Doug. I'll give you a list in a couple of weeks, as I'll need to look up active, prospective, probable, possible and just "I want it" changes on the horizon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 21:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Remove Move Protection on Alexis Thompson (golfer)

Hello, I noticed that you added Move Protection to the page Alexis Thompson (golfer) back in November 2009 after an incident of vandalism. However, at this time we would like to make a legitimate move to the article title from Alexis Thompson (golfer) to Lexi Thompson, as noted in the article's Talk page. We are unable to do this as long as Move Protection is in place. Can you remove the Protection please, even temporarily, so the move can be made? thank you. --Crunch (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it for you. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Crunch (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chkashif786

Can I draw your attention to the above? You've just deleted his latest posting of his self-promotional 'article'. He was indefinitely blocked yesterday. Peridon (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings syndrome

Good call; I must've missed something — where did you see the attack? (Unless it's so gross you can't repeat it here) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attack on someone named Hastings. We see a lot of these fake-disease articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lords At War" (SECOND Inquiry)

Hello NawlinWiki,

On 14 January 2011, I posted the following remarks, to which I have yet to receive a response:

You have informed me that the article I wrote about the hip hop band Lords At War "does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant." In addition to the fact that Lords At War is a published hip hop act that recorded and released a 12" single in 1992 that sells for up to $550.00 per copy today, there are over ten paragraphs worth of additional information that detail "why the subject is important or significant."

I ask that you please "hang on" a moment and review the content of the article - including those reference sources that confirm the authenticity of the band and the value of their recording (www.discogs.com and www.popsike.com). I'm sure you will find that this is not a "contrived" or "invented" entry at all but one that was carefully written after doing thorough research and conducting extensive interviews.

Thank you for your consideration.

T.Diva 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Taina.diva

THE EXPLANATION GIVEN FOR THE DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE IS NOT VALID. PLEASE REVIEW THE ARTICLE MORE THOROUGHLY AND RECONSIDER IT FOR INCLUSION IN WIKIPEDIA.

T.Diva 05:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taina.diva (talk • contribs)

Apart from notability concerns, the article is written like an ad - "it wasn’t long before the band had established a reputation as stellar performers.", etc. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SomersTotalKare

Following the speedy deletion of my article on SomersTotalKare, I have rewritten the post to try and comply with your recommendations. Thankyou for your comments, could you please have a look at the new post on the following link and see if this is more suitable? It is now almost purely a historical account of the business rather than an explanation of its current activities and performance. If approved, I have a timeline of the evolution of the mobile vehicle lift and some photos from up to 20 years ago that illustrate the business history which I would like to upload. Regarding the request for more links, the business is cited on a variety of industry magazine websites and in their magazines with editorial pieces as well as advertisements. It is also listed is many UK directories and is highly rated on an international level by www.top20sites.com/Top-Vehicle-Lifts-Sites. Any help that you could offer would be much appreciated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingswinford92/SomersTotalKare — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingswinford92 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads as advertising, still doesn't show how the company satisfies the notability standards of WP:CORP, and still doesn't cite any independent sources (see WP:V). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, how can I alter the article to comply and what kind of sources are you looking for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingswinford92 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nawlin, could you please have a look over the latest copy of the SomersTotalKare draft. I have followed your recommendations and provided ten reliable sources and altered the tone to make it more impartial. Regarding notability, while I have not included this to ensure it doesn't sound like advertising, Somers is the UK market leader and has annual turnover of around £5m according to an AM-Online article as well as operating in the market for over 30 years. However, as aforementioned, I have left out the turnover for impartiality reasons and I have cited the industry statistics that prove the market leading nature of the business. Please can you let me know if this is okay as I am looking to provide as good an article as possible?--Kingswinford92 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- None of the sources you cited is really an article *about* this company - the ones that are not from the Somers website are business directories, or mention Somers only in passing. Furthermore, the "Products and Services" section is still advertising, with language like "with an ongoing drive for development, spearheaded by technical director Michael Gilliam". It's just really difficult to avoid being promotional when you're writing about a company you are affiliated with, see WP:COI. If you were to post this article, I wouldn't *speedy* delete it, but I would list it for deletion at WP:AFD, and I don't think it would pass. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that many of the sources are direcories, some do provide factual accounts of the firm's history (2, 4, 5, 6 in particular) and it is this collage of sources that make up the article as well as first hand accounts of the firm. While I appreciate that the article may be considered advertising, the history of the business is in impartial language and the Products and Services section will be greatly reduced to comply with wikipedia standards. I apologise for consuming so much of your time with this article but as I'm sure you appreciate I have spent a lot of time at my end, compiling and wording the information and accumulating relevant images and sources to go with it. I feel that the business is notable and that is why I have sought your help to try and get the article approved and live on wikipedia. Could you reread my latest draft, which should be on by around 14:30GMT and let me know what you think?

Theory of Excellence

Hello, can you elaborate on why Theory of Excellence was deleted. This taxonomy is based on the latest neuro-scientific research so please could you provide more detail on how it contraviened the rules. Thanks Terry Wilcox

It's advertising for one person's business. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Town Real Estate

Wondering why it was deleted. It has articles from The Wall Street Journal and The Real Deal to verify it and "indicates the importance" of the company. Cascas2 (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the notability concerns, the article is written as an advertisement: "Town’s primary goal is to provide genuine and practical real estate services to its customers and representatives - an aim that has become increasingly rare in a world of technological static, Internet transactions and impersonal communication. The firm offers a host of services..." NawlinWiki (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bedat & Co

I would like to re-write the contents for this article, as I've read that the previous articles written were "unambiguous advertising". However, it has been blocked. I would like to write about this company, so could you kindly unblock it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyJinxi3 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do a draft in your userspace, say, at User:BabyJinxi3\Bedat & Co. and then let me know when you're ready for me to look at it? NawlinWiki (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyJinxi3 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed my first draft for Bedat & Co on my Userspace, User:BabyJinxi3. Kindly read through and let me know if there are any amendments required. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC).
- Honestly, this still seems like publicity/advertising for the company. Also, the sources all appear to be either blogs or PR/newswire repost sites. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to re-write it again. I followed the guidelines from Gucci. If you don't mind, I'll inform you once it's completed and should you not mind, you could help me go through it again. Thank you. BabyJinxi3 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear NawlinWiki, I've amended the Bedat & Co article. Hope I would have done it right this time. Could you kindly read it through again? User:BabyJinxi3. Thank You. BabyJinxi3 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Cafe (band)

I can't understand what was wrong with this article. I think that it provided information worthy of the public, at least for those who seek information about scandinavian rock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta99ification (talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough for you, or me for that matter, to believe that a subject is "worthy of the public". We have specific guidelines for notability for bands, see WP:MUSIC. If Grand Cafe doesn't meet those guidelines, as shown by reliable independent sources (see WP:V), it doesn't get an article. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the Yung Envy Page

Hello, could you please tell me why you deleted the Yung Envy page, it's not for me, its for him. I know Envy, Is it possible for you to make the page, as I dont have any experience.YungHaS (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to cite reliable independent sources to show how this artist meets the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know him, and would Myspace, Youtube be classes as sources. Ive redone the Yung Envy page, can you please check it, and tell me how to make it better. Please dont delete it. Thanks. YungHaS (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a reliable source, and neither are MySpace and YouTube. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get well card

Just thought I'd drop by and say this... Who did you piss off? Like, for real, someone REALLY does not like you. I don't know the back story, and maybe I shouldn't ask. But I do notice that you get an inordinate amount of shit coming your way, and it seems to be one person who obviously doesn't like you. However, I just thought it would be worthwhile to drop a note on your talk page, if for no reason than to spread a little wikilove and let you know that you are appreciated and that you do an awesome job at Wikipedia. I'm not gonna leave a barnstar or a smileyface or a picture of a cookie you can't eat. I just wanted to leave a short personal note telling you that you are awesome. Toodles! --Jayron32 04:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just one of the many people who User:JarlaxleArtemis has sworn lifelong enmity against for not letting him do something he wanted to do. But thanks so much! NawlinWiki (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You mean the HAGGER guy? Srsly? Why you specifically, if you don't mind me asking? Cuz, I think that every admin has taken down a sock of his at some point... --Jayron32 04:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, srsly. He has now been vandalizing Wikipedia for over 5 years, or about a quarter of his sad life. Guess I was a little more active than most regarding him. And it's not me specifically - he has attacked probably 15-20 admins here. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's the Grawp guy, not the HAGGER guy. That's someone else. And yeah, he's been pushing the same sad shite since about 2006. Sysops have come and gone, yet he's still here. Go figure - Alison ^❤ 05:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

Did you know you were part of a train? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And plus, has that guy even met Nawlin, or is just pulling up random editors? -- CMO _{Talk, you must} 08:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder what his loco motive is? NawlinWiki (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy in the Oak

Hi, you left a CSD template message at User talk:HeatherManic on (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC), stating that the page had been deleted. Amazingly, this one-line, totally unreferenced stub of extremely dubious notability survives an AfD some days later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Boy in the Oak. The odd thing is that your deletion does not appear in any logs. I don't know (yet) how the admin tools work. Am I missing something? Did you forget to actually delete it? I'm more interested in the technical aspect than the issue of the AfD, although I'm inclined to CSD A7 it again. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The version I deleted was a different capitalization, The boy in the oak (now a redirect). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I think the point I was making was: Was the uncapitalised version (that has since become a redirect) significantly different from the two-line, totally unreferenced stub that has just been kept with flying colors at AfD? I'm hesitating between simply slapping a CSD on it, or asking for a DR, or asking for an explanation from the closing admin. --Kudpung (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I restored the uncapitalized version after I deleted it and moved it to the capitalized version, which then passed AFD. So you can't just speedy-delete it; you'd need to list it for a second AFD. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Screen9

Hi,

You deleted a page about Screen9 and I would like to explain the case a bit further. First off, I'm a representative of Screen9 and I'm aware that this means I have a conflict of interest. If I understand your motivation for deletion correctly, it is because it is not of general interest. I can fully understand how this can appear to be the case since the name is not known. We have rebranded the online video platform part of Picsearch under the name Screen9. This means that there is not yet any press mentioning Screen9, only Picsearch. If I add citations referring to the video platform part of Picsearch's business, will this qualify as an ok article?

To clarify, I'm not interested in creating a spammy company advert page. I just see that a lot of our competitors of similar size and with similar product offering are mentioned on wikipedia and I think it makes for a more objective presentation if we can be represented too.

--Bjorn1979 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the name Screen9 is "not yet known" and there is no press, this should at best be an addition to the Picsearch article. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 181: / Line 181: @@
 **None of the sources you cited is really an article *about* this company - the ones that are not from the Somers website are business directories, or mention Somers only in passing.  Furthermore, the "Products and Services" section is still advertising, with language like "with an ongoing drive for development, spearheaded by technical director Michael Gilliam".  It's just really difficult to avoid being promotional when you're writing about a company you are affiliated with, see [[WP:COI]].  If you were to post this article, I wouldn't *speedy* delete it, but I would list it for deletion at [[WP:AFD]], and I don't think it would pass. [[User:NawlinWiki|NawlinWiki]] ([[User talk:NawlinWiki#top|talk]]) 12:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
+While I agree that many of the sources are direcories, some do provide factual accounts of the firm's history (2, 4, 5, 6 in particular) and it is this collage of sources that make up the article as well as first hand accounts of the firm. While I appreciate that the article may be considered advertising, the history of the business is in impartial language and the Products and Services section will be greatly reduced to comply with wikipedia standards. I apologise for consuming so much of your time with this article but as I'm sure you appreciate I have spent a lot of time at my end, compiling and wording the information and accumulating relevant images and sources to go with it. I feel that the business is notable and that is why I have sought your help to try and get the article approved and live on wikipedia. Could you reread my latest draft, which should be on by around 14:30GMT and let me know what you think?
 == Theory of Excellence ==