User talk:Gurmukh.s

Notability of Ocimum Biosolutions

A tag has been placed on Ocimum Biosolutions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ais523 13:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Ocimumbio

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ocimumbio, by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ocimumbio is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ocimumbio, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Ocimumbio itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: (User talk:ais523) Regarding deletion of Ocimum Biosolutions

I've looked at three of the references you've provided (the other two were subscription-only, so I couldn't see what they said). They're certainly enough to show the existence of the company, and possibly that it's mentioned independent sources (the writing style of the first three references reminds me of the appearance of advertising, but I suspect it's simply the writing style of the publication rather than any sort of paid placement.) More of a problem was the deleted article itself; it was written like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article; Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral point of view. (In some cases, creating a Wikipedia article has backfired on a company, because if negative information about a company comes up that would be appropriate for the article and is neutral it's included just the same way as positive information would be; see Criticism of Microsoft for an extreme example.) A simple statement of what the company does, without using advertising-like phrases, would be less likely to be deleted. (See also How not to be a spammer, from the spam guidelines.) Even so, I'm not sure whether the article would be kept even if written in the right tone and with the references provided; it would depend on some extent to what the subscription-only references said, and whether other references turned up.

Most importantly, the deleted article was in fact a copyright violation (the text was identical to http://www.ocimumbio.com/web/default.asp, which has 'Copyright © 2000- 2007 Ocimum Biosolutions. All rights reserved.' at the bottom); any text submitted to Wikipedia must be licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence (see the Wikipedia article about the licence or the full legal details), which companies are normally unwilling to release their information under (and it's often a bad idea, as you're allowing anyone else to reuse the information and edit it as they like). Copyright violations are deleted on sight; see the copyright policy. Note that as I explained in the paragraph above, articles copied from a company's website are unlikely to be written in the right style anyway; rewriting the article from scratch would be a good idea.

Finally, bear the conflict of interest guidelines in mind; it's very hard to write neutrally about a company you're connected with, and often it's best to wait for someone unconnected with the company to write the article first. --ais523 08:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)