User talk:Athard

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Athard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Kemin Industries, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Tufacave (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme Dec 2008

{{helpme}} I have created a page and saved it in my user page. I am brand new here, so i'm still trying to figure things out. Anyways, how can i get someone to review my page before i make it go live?

Athard (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC) "[reply]

Athard, I looked at the page, however it is generally a slightly modified version of the company's corporate history. "Kemin Today" is an exact word for word copy of the "New Opportunities" section of http://www.kemin.com/about/history. I am glad that you asked first before posting, but I feel that the article will need more work before being posted. The direct copy and paste sections need to be removed/reworded. Also if you can find some other sources to provide history other than the company itself, the article will be more reliable and less biased. Rewording the company's own about us page does not provide a neutral, unbiased view of the company, as is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Terrillja _talk 17:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read up on WP:CORP for what is required of an article about a company. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Kemin Industries

A tag has been placed on Kemin Industries, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of 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 guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Tufacave (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions above tell what to do since the article has been deleted. If you need any more help, ask on my talk page. Also, please put new posts at the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme 30 March 2009

{{helpme}}

I just created a new page about Kemin Industries. Would someone please take a look and let me know if it is okay to go live? thank you.

Athard (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've moved your help request down to the bottom here; it's easier to follow these things if you put them at the end of your talk page.

I'll take a look at your new version, and report back here in a few minutes. Chzz ► 18:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not OK; I'll try to explain why.

The only references are to the company itself; all articles must include secondary sources. For example, I could say on my myspace page that I'm the Queen of Sheba, and use that as a reference; it wouldn't be accepted. I'd have to have a reliable secondary source, such as, for example, a BBC News article about myself and my queenhood. For more info, see WP:V, WP:RS.

If secondary sources are not available to support facts, then those facts have to go. Assuming that you can find secondary sources to prove notability, I suspect the article will have to be much shorter than it is now, for the reasons above.

The article doesn't have any wikilinks. For example, the word "nutritional" could be linked to the article on nutrition, using the code [[nutritional|nutrition]], which would result in this: Kemin Industries is a nutrition ingredients manufacturer...

The name of the article should be surrounded by ''', so it looks like this: Kemin Industries is a...

Most important - I suspect you have a conflict of interest with this article. Therefore, I would strongly recommend two things;

a) Don't create the article yet; edit some other articles, 'get into' Wikipedia, and learn how things work first. For example, dive into WP:Community portal, and check the 'Help out' section. Add comments to the talk page of articles, get involved in discussions.
b) When you are ready to create the article, and if you can find enough sources, first read WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. Follow the suggestions there, and you're much more likely to succeed - i.e. don't create it yourself, but instead request that it is created.

I sincerely hope that this helps; if you have further questions, you could place another {{helpme}} below here, or ask me directly on my own talk page - but, perhaps best of all, talk to us live.

Good luck with it all, Chzz ► 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme 8 April 1

{{helpme}}

Hello. I reworked the Kemin page. I now have more references and I removed the copy that is a re-hash from the Kemin website. I made the page more factual. Could you please let me know what else I could do before this page could go live? I didn't want to post it until I get an okay from someone at Wiki.

Thank you.

Athard (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT still has major issues with tone and no wikilinks whatsoever. Also, please put new posts at the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme 8 April 2

{{helpme}}

Hi again. I have added wikilinks and changed the tone. Please let me know if this is fine now. Thanks again. You guys give good advice and the page has really evolved since I started this process, but it has been a good learning curve.

Athard (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more fixes. I think the product list is a little spammy, but it's a decent enough start class article. Do you want me to move it to article space now? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. thanks a lot for your help.

Athard (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Worldcom PR Group

A tag has been placed on Worldcom PR Group, 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 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 guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 18:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme 14 April

I just put up a page for Worldcom PR group. Please take a look at it and let me know if this is okay, or what changes you suggest. Thanks.

Athard (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved your help request down here; easier to deal with. Always create a new section at the end of talk pages to start a conversation.

I will take a look at the article now, and reply here soon. Chzz ► 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've just 'rearraged' your talk page, here, to put things in sections and date order. Sections are headed like this; == Section name ==. Keeping things in sections, and chronological order, makes it much less confusing. Cheers, Chzz ► 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, still loads of problems with the article - many of which are the same as we've previously tried to explain, for example;

No inline references
Self-references (primary sources); no secondary references/reliable sources
No wikilinks
Inappropriate tone (reads like an advert)
Doesn't assert notability

etc.

The business FAQ might help.

Cheers, Chzz ► 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I made a few changes including changing the tone and adding some inline citations and wiki links. Please let me know if these marks are effective. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Athard (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article is in User:Athard/Worldcom PR Group Chzz ► 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, same. Doesn't assert notability because there are no reliable sources. Primary sources are not enough, see verifiability. Chzz ► 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} I added some txt to the article and also found another reference... perhaps I'm not sure what you mean by "primary sources are not enough"... wouldn't a primary source be the company itself? and if I'm sourcing content from publication not related to the company wouldn't that be secondary? Please help! Thank you!

Yes, you're right about 'primary' being the company itself.

I've just fixed the refs with this edit; you don't need to list the references explicitly in the refs section, you just put {{reflist}} and Wikipedia fills it in automagically.

I've moved the company site itself into 'External links' - again, this is the standard way of doing things. Note that you need to be wary of adding external links to articles; in this case, that one link is fine - but don't add others. See WP:EXTERNAL.

I will now take a fresh look at the article, and give you further feedback here very soon. Chzz ► 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an 'introduction' section - the first part, we call it the lede, should start with the name of the article (in '''bold''', which displays as bold). For example,

Worldcom Public Relations Group is the largest global network of independently owned public relations firms, with 112 integrated communications agencies located in 93 cities in 39 countries in North America, Latin America, Asia Pacific and Europe and the Middle East.

The reference that you give for this statement [1] does indeed state that it is 'the largest global network' etc. It does not, however, state that they have 112 agencies in 93 cities in 39 countries. References are required to assert these facts - and yes, they must be reliable secondary sources, such as a news article. If there is no such information provided in a news article, then those facts must be removed.

I haven't been through the whole article like this, but I hope it illustrates the problems. For example, it says the co was established in 1988, and a search of the PDF didn't find any mention of "1988". I may have missed something, but you get the general idea?

I'm sorry if this does sound negative, but there are reasons for these policies. Imagine if the article went live, and I then edited it, saying "Worldcom Public Relations Group is the worst PR company in the world", without a reference - or with a reference to my own myspace page. This would not be permitted, and, for the same reasons, unverifiable facts cannot be added to the article.

As always, I'll be happy to help more, answer any questions, etc.

Best, Chzz ► 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips!! I will re-work and get back to you! You're so helpful! Keep up the good work!

Tips on referencing

There are lots of ways to do this, some are simple, some more complex.

Personally, I like using citation templates, and fill in as much as I possibly can; maybe a bit more work, but I think it looks better. You have a <REF> at the start, then a suitable cite tag, then </REF>. An example usage is;

<ref>
{{Citation
 | last = Preston
 | first = Peter
 | title = D. H. Lawrence in the modern world
 | last2 = Hoare
 | first2 = Peter
 | author2-link =
 | publication-date = 1989
 | edition = illustrated
 | place = [[Cambridge]], [England]
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
 | url = http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=J5nRoaOwkPMC&printsec=frontcover#PPA125,M1
 | accessdate = 2008-05-11
}}
</ref>

For all the possible things to include, see Template:Citation

Of course, you don't have to put everything in, just whatever you can. The above example is a book, but I've included a 'convenience link' to a website that displays it.

Then, at the end of the document (but before any 'category' tags), you need a references section. You just put,

== References ==

{{reflist}}

Hard work? - help is at hand. There are lots of tools that create cite tags automagically. Personally, I use Zotero for the web links, and the cite book generator for books.

I also recommend you look at other articles and copy from them - especially featured articles, which should have good refs.

Hope this help, cheers, Chzz ► 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education Please check this page and let me know if you think it's good to go live. Thanks! Athard (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any news sources or anything? None of the sources seems to be more than trivial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{Helpme}} Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education I've added a few more sources to the external links section. Please let me know if you think this is ready to go live. Athard (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a good enough start. It barely asserts notability but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help request 27 April

{{helpme}} Hi. I have edited and updated the Worldcom PR Group page for your review. In it, I added new references and removed some facts that I couldn't verify from third party sources. I also added wiki links and lede. Could you look at it and let me know if this is acceptable by Wiki standards? Again, thank you for all your patience and help with this.

Athard (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: User:Athard/Worldcom PR Group

I'm looking at it now; more here soon. Chzz ► 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update to say I've not forgotten about this; have been doing other help requests etc. I'll look within the next couple of hours. Chzz ► 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)

Notability

As the article stands - with the references given - I'm not sure if it meets notability requirements. I took a look on Google News, and see some possible reliable sources there. Note that not everything in that search is a reliable source, and some may just be 'passing mentions' - but any that are good and solid, might help improve the chances of notability. I'm still not certain whether this article would stand up to notability requirements, or if it would be possible to do so.

References

1. prweekus - this is just a directory listing; it is not verifiable. I assume that the content was given by the company itself, therefore it 'proves' nothing.

2. reuters - this is a good reference, so as long as it verifies the facts associated, that will be OK

3. primetime - using search, I see no mention of Worldcom within the PDF - unless I'm missing something? If it doesn't mention Worldcom, then it's a useless reference

4. the street - as far as I can see, this is all about the 'other' worldcom. If it's used to reference the mention of that, then OK...although I'm sure there would be more reliable sources available?

Content

The logo should go in an infobox, showing details about the company. See Template:Infobox Company for details, and for examples, see other company articles e.g. Cisco Systems.

"the largest global network of independently owned public relations firms" - this very assertive statement definitely needs a solid reliable source - and a directory listing will not suffice. It sounds very promotional. As the start of the article, I suspect that anyone casually reviewing it would make up their minds, from this alone, that it's an advertising piece, and would nominate it for deletion. I've struck the above, as I see now that that fact is asserted in the Reuters article, the second ref. However, this referencing is unclear, it needs to be explicit within the paragraph. Also, you might think of rewording it so it doesn't sound quite so promotional, especially for the lede. See WP:LEDE for thoughts on how to begin articles - it should be a clear, simple overview of the content of the whole thing.

"with 112 integrated communications agencies located in 35 countries around the world" - how can you prove this? It needs independent, reliable, secondary sources, such as national newspapers. Not a directory listing. If it can't be verified, it has to go. Think of it this way - if I'm reading the article, how could I check that this information is correct?

...and so on through all the other facts within the article.

Other points;

Don't link a year (1988), do link to other articles about related topics. (As said before, look at featured articles is a good way to get ideas for layout etc.)

Avoid making it sounds like an advert, it should sound encyclopaedic. So avoid terms like "flexibility", "expand the breadth and depth of their client services", etc.

Overall comments

I hope that you'll appreciate that, as a volunteer working to improve wikipedia, I have taken the time to look at this article in detail. Looking at your contributions, I see that almost everything you have done is concerned with this company. If your only intent on wikipedia is to try to promote a company, then you will not have a happy time here. If you intend to work to improve the wikipedia, then you'll have a great time.

As explained previously, there are many ways to get involved, and it is strongly recommended that you get involved in editing areas with which you do not have a conflict of interest.

Also, as explained before, you should not create an article on this company. You could put in a request, in Wikipedia:Requested articles.

I hope this has been useful. Chzz ► 02:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hello again. Thank you for all your advise and notes. This is a good learning experience for me. I have reworked the Worldcom page. I moved the logo to the right, removed certain adjectives from the piece that make it sound like a marketing article and have added 2 resources from Reuters. I also removed the resource for the other Worldcom since the wiki article that it is linked to has all the info on that. I also looked at the Wiki page for PRSA and tried to model the worldcom page on that, keeping it simple and to the point. Can you let me know if this is okay? Thank again for your time.

Athard (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't Reliable Sources, because it's a paid-for report, in other words, a form of advertisement. The articles state, "Katcher Vaughn & Bailey Public Relations". Chzz ► 21:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hi, I just created a page for Dice.com. Could somebody take a look at it and let me know if it is okay to publish? Thank you. The page is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athard/dice.com Athard (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see nothing notable about the company - ho, hum another IT recruiter out of a billion of them. Looks promotional. That's my opinion, so I'll leave the HELP here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A useful way to get comments on a draft article is to post a request, with a link to it, at WP:Requests for feedback. JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I edited the article a bit to add notability. Dice.com is one of the oldest IT recruiting companies in the United States and has been around for longer than even Monster. I hope that adds to the notability. Thank you again for your review.

Athard (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider making one whole paragraph rather than a timeline and use inline citations for the sources. See WP:REFB for how. fetchcomms☛ 21:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:DiceLogo H.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:DiceLogo H.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fred the Oyster (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Athard/dice.com

User:Athard/dice.com, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/dice.com and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Athard/dice.com during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 04:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have restructured the page and added a few more links for notability. Please let me know if this works. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athard/dice.com

Athard (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to review and join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/dice.com, where the nominating editor specified why he/she believe that this page should be deleted. I see that you've participated there already, so I'll comment further on the merits at that page. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tips. I have reworked the article. Please let me know if it is okay now. Thanks.

Athard (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you mention this at the MfD discussion linked to above, and let the editors involved in the discussion there let you know. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Athard, why did you remove this information from the page? Cunard (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice.com in the work area for now and not make it live? I would like to add more information to the article and had merely asked for help for the first part that I wrote, to make sure that I was on the right path. This article is not ready for the live area.

Athard (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it from Dice.com to User:Athard/Dice.com as per your request. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Athard/Dice.com is suitable for the mainspace because the draft cites numerous reliable sources that establish the website's notability. There is no chance of it getting deleted. Athard, couldn't you work on it in the mainspace as well? Cunard (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a WP:RM request at User talk:Athard/Dice.com. Cunard (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request October 2010

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi, I just created a page for Rotobrush International. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athard/Rotobrush. It is in the userspace and not yet live. Could someone please take a look at it and let me know if it can be made live?

Thanks

Athard (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that notability of this business is going to be an issue, the general standard is "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

Ref #1 only says the company exists.
Ref #2 states that someone is employed there, nothing about the company's notability.
Ref #3 only says that company exists.
Ref #4 talks about the general importance of what the company does, but says nothing about why this particular company is notable.

If you can find independent, in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources such as newspapers, magazines or other media of international/national/regional focus rather than from media of limited circulation/interest, that would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Thanks for your notes. I have updated the page with a couple of links that I found on an HVAC related news site. Please let me know if this works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Athard/Rotobrush

Thanks Athard (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article's subject does not pass Wikipedia's threshold of notability, I don't see the depth of coverage that the Wikipedia policy regarding notability for organizations requires. "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements". You might still be able to find significant media coverage of the company, but I think that you should leave it in your Userspace while you work on it. If the article in its present state was placed in MainSpace it most probably would be nominated for a speedy deletion with an A7 criterion A7 Deletion. Shearonink (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ollieinc (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to disambig you link to duct on this page you made about the Rotobrush :) cheers Ollieinc (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Strategic America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Strategic America is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strategic America until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. v/r - T P 20:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Athard/Rotobrush

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Athard/Rotobrush, 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Athard/Dennis Brouse

User:Athard/Dennis Brouse, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Athard/Dennis Brouse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Athard/Dennis Brouse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Worldcom-logo.jpg

The file File:Worldcom-logo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Alliance for Choice in Education until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ajshul ^<talk> 14:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]