User talk:Ah1275

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ah1275, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Wisdom89 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T3 (The Think Tank)

A tag has been placed on T3 (The Think Tank), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of T3 (The Think Tank) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an advertising service or business directory. Before writing about your own business, please read Business' FAQ. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

The recent edit you made to T3 (The Think Tank) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Ignore the message just above - often when a page is blanked it is vandalism, and gets reverted almost without thinking. In this case I presume you blanked it because had realised that it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia. I have arranged for it to be deleted. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of T3 (The Think Tank)

A tag has been placed on T3 (The Think Tank) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EJF (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of T3 (The Think Tank)

A tag has been placed on T3 (The Think Tank) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EJF (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This advertising agency is one of the top 100 in the United States and the largest wholly female owned agency. Most advertising agencies are large conglomerates of smaller groups and are publicly traded. This agency is noteworthy partially because it is different. Am I free to recreate the page or is it still not "noteworthy" enough?" - This is the kind of substantive, if unsourced, assertion of notability that should have been put on the article in the first place, rather than a gigantic graphic of an office building. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with OrangeMike - if properly sourced, that does seem to indicate that the company may be notable. Since the article has been deleted several times, I'd recommend writing the article in your userspace and showing it to other editors before posting it. If you can show (through reliable, secondary sources) that the company is notable, then you may find that consensus would favor a re-creation of the article. Repeatedly re-posting the same article will only make that goal more difficult. I might recommend starting the article here, in your userspace. Add your sources, and even ask for help in copyediting if you wish. Once you have an article that is neutral, non-promotional, and discusses why this company is notable though secondary sources, then we can discuss re-posting it. But not until then, OK? Please leave a message at my talk page with any questions. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of editing it when it was pulled down. In a collaborate environment it seems we should have slightly more time to adjust postings.