User talk:Aparlini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A tag has been placed on Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, 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 or service and which 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 the page 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.

Hello Aparlini, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! VK35 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

VK35 17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies[edit]

A tag has been placed on Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, 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 or service and which 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 the page 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. Cyrus Andiron 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please review Wikipedia the following policies and guidelines:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
Wikipedia:Spam
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Rrburke(talk) 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Information.svg If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked indefinitely without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. I note that you edited the article to try to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. That's a move in the right direction, but the problem is that in most cases it's just not considered appropriate to author or edit articles on an organization you work for. Also, since the information you provide is from first-hand knowledge, it violates Wikipedia's policy prohibiting the use of original research. --Rrburke(talk) 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The project was already included by 3rd party users in key wiki articles on nano. The relevant support information for the project was missing. How can that be added??Aparlini 19:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
There are a few things you might try. I should tell you candidly up-front that the article is very likely to be deleted. Even if it survives speedy deletion, it will nevertheless probably be proposed for deletion or sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion because its author is so closely associated with the organization.
If the article is deleted, you could then (sparingly) add redlinks to a few articles in which the organization is prominently featured. This is done by placing two sets of square brackets around the name of the organization in an article in which it appears. This creates an internal link. However, since the link refers to no existing article, it will appear red rather than blue. If you wish, you could explain on the article's talk page or in the edit summary that you have added the redlink because you think the organization should have an article devoted to it, but that a conflict of interest prevents you from creating or editing the article. The appearance of a red link in the article may encourage another editor to create an article on the organization.
You could also find an appropriate category in which to add the organization to the list of requested articles and then hope that an interested editor will create the article. However, any article on an organization where the creator of the article or its primary contributor is closely connected to the organization stands a good chance of being deleted. At the very least, the closely-connected editor's contributions will probably be removed.
Please be aware that sources for the article on an organization should be third-party and independent (i.e. not provided by the organization); they must also be reliable. As the notability guidelines for companies and organizations state, "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other."
Essentially, you're expected to wait until some interested (but disinterested) editor decides to create the article, and then they will draw on available secondary sources to fill it. If no such sources exist, then the subject probably doesn't deserve an article. The rationale for this is much like the guideline discouraging autobiographical articles: if you're sufficiently noteworthy, somebody else will probably create an article about you. If you have to create it yourself, there probably shouldn't be one. --Rrburke(talk) 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten[edit]

COI means also that the emphasis and detail of articles written by closely-involved individuals tends to be unsuited for WP standard format. This is better judged by outsiders. The article did indeed need substantial rewriting. As an outsider, I've rewritten the article. I see no problem about notability, considering the sponsorship. Therefore I removed the tag, both issues being now addressed.

It is still necessary to get some outside references to the work of the group. This should not be difficult. Web or print is OK. I would advise you to get them very quickly. Personally, I think the article is defendable at AfD, or I would not have done the work of rewriting it. With 2 good independent non-trivial refs. it should have little trouble. In its original state, it did look like what WP calls spam. DGG 22:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)