User talk:Charineeimagebkk/Sandbox

I can see why it was deleted. The main thing is that a policy of Wikipedia is :

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

You will need to satisfy the criteria that the agency is Notable. As it stands other than vague references to a couple of clients and an aspiring F1 guy this falls short. To give an example IBM is notable as a huge international organisation, providing many products, research and innovation whereas Dave's Roller Doors would be a company that certainly exists but has done nothing notable that justifies an encyclopedia entry. I'm sorry, but I think the company falls very short of our guidelines on notability. Pedro | Chat 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but the company is only mentioned in passing with regards to the F1 driver. I am going to ask another editor to review this for you as well, as I am still struggling to see notability. Pedro | Chat 09:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the request by Pedro | Chat , I have come to take a look. I think it is borderline notable, but I am sure that we could find something... but I feel it needs a bit of cleanup as well. If I came across this on new page patrol, I would leave it, because I am not sure, but that doesn't mean that everyone will... :) -- Stwalkerster talk 09:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so what should I do? does that mean it is ok and good enough to start the new article? maybe i could add a company info box on the side as well?Charineeimagebkk 09:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworked it a bit, which makes it sound a bit more notable, but I would like to hear from pedro again before giving it the thumbs up... :) -- Stwalkerster talk 09:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh shit that wasnt supposed to be on there, sorry careless mistake. ok wow thats a big differnece you made there, amazing! ok lets see what he'll say, thank you again :) Charineeimagebkk 09:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my big problem is that this article has been created and speedied about six times now. If this was the first go, then I'd say it was worth posting, even though it might get prodded. But too many editors / admins have speedied and I just think the WP:N is not there. I'm sorry, but I'd advise against placing this in the main space as I think it will be speedied again. Pedro | Chat 10:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I partly agree with Pedro, I don't think it should go into the mainspace YET, but if you could find some more sources that show notability, then I would recommend going for another shot. However, if you want to try again, I can't stop you, so feel free to do so, but heed the warning: admins can get a bit annoyed deleting the same article over and over again. Good Luck with it! :) -- Stwalkerster talk 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I will take a look. However, I have moved the article off this talk page. To get to it from here, you can just click the 'User Page' tab at the top. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 07:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Interesting. Maybe if this was a first attempt in the mainspace, but when people see that it is a recreation, they can be a little more biased towards the delete button...good progress though. Basically what I'm saying is that do some more work on it, and ask me again. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 07:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright, gotcha, i know which direction to go from here, thanks a million times, will get back to you as soon as i've made enough changes. Charineeimagebkk 07:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pedro asked me to take a look at this. I'm afraid it still doesn't assert notability in the Wikipedia sense. Even if it did assert notability, it would be deletable at WP:AFD because it lacks any citations to independent sources that significantly discuss the subject. What this article needs are citations to books, magazine articles, newspaper articles or other reliable sources that are more or less about the company, rather than just mentioning it. The proposed article also reads like a promo piece, so it could also be speedied as blatant advertising. "Effectively managed" and "ensure successful outcomes" are peacock phrases generally used by PR people, not encyclopedia writers. An encyclopedic article should provide a neutral overview of a subject, addressing negatives as well as positives. But even if this problem is rectified, you will need to find sources that significantly discuss the company in order to keep this article on Wikipedia for any length of time. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]