User talk:Nancyrush

Just a note to let you know I moved your comment from the talkpage of the article to the actual discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapult Systems. Didn't want it to be overlooked. Syrthiss (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much. can you tell me the right way to do it - I know of some other people who want to respond to the discussion as well and, frankly, we're confused! (Nancyrush (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Also, we strongly suspect the request to delete the Catapult Systems article is from a disgruntled employee who was recently terminated. What is the best way for us to handle this situation? (Nancyrush (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

follow the link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapult Systems, and edit that page to add comments. Please try and follow the formatting style you see from your comment and the others further up the page (putting the * to make a bullet and three single quotes on either side of their initial keep or delete to make it bold). However, please be advised that the discussion is not a vote and therefore persuasive arguments (not numbers of people saying 'keep') are what are considered. As to the second situation, I'm not sure there is any way to help in that regard. No matter who nominates an article, it must stand or fall on its own merits. A baseless nomination would be rapidly kept, and someone doing it with a clear agenda would likely find themselves blocked. I can caution you though that one of the main principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith. Looking at the nominator, they have been contributing here for a very long time...and as such it is very unlikely to me that they fit the situation you describe. Syrthiss (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, again thank you for all of the help. We will add in comments to prove the value of the page versus just having people vote. If there's anything you see in the article that we could add to make it stronger (other than more references to articles in national publications), please let me know as we're newbies to Wikipedia :-) (Nancyrush (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

We checked yesterday and noticed that the Catapult Systems page no longer exists. Can someone let us know why it was deleted and what actions need to be taken to get it reinstated.--Nancyrush (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, looks like the arguments given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapult Systems for its deletion aligned with the deleting administrator's (User:Backslash Forwardslash) understanding of our policies and guidelines. Lacking significant media coverage that wasn't press releases, we had no basis for notability. You might look at our corporate notability guidelines and reliable sources to see how to integrate those into your article if you decide to recreate it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps - I replied because I happen to have your talk page watched, but I'm not always around. If you need help with something here, you can place {{helpme}} on this page for regular users and {{adminhelp}} if you wish the assistance of an admin and follow them with your question. Syrthiss (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

Thank you for the information. Based on the previous discussion we added in a number of reference sources other than press releases including nationwide coverage of our recent Microsoft Worldwide Partner of the Year award, which was featured in over 166 national publications including AOL Money & Finance, Forbes.com, Yahoo, Reuters, MarketWatch and Technology Today, among others, and some national coverage of our regional awards as well. I believe that does meet the requirements outlined in the policies and guidelines - is that not the case? --Nancyrush (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a yes or no answer to your question. While Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding what merits content and content retention, ultimately it is up to the community to determine consensus as to whether or not the mertis of the article are valid no matter whether or not if fits with appropriate citation for claims. Wikipedia content is generated by collaboration and there is no one person who can determine what is acceptable. Administrators who close deletion debates are acting at the will of the community, and not personal judgment. Keegan (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}We do understand that that the will of the community needs to be followed, however, when this all started there were only two users who weighed in on whether or not to delete the page (hardly a majority) and that was before we added in the references to the national coverage that was missing. If Wikipedia still feels that the page is not relevant, we will concede, but I don't feel that it's been given a fair review.Nancyrush (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't operate on majority vote, we operate on consensus. Your company appears to fail the corporate notability guideline. You have a conflict of interest with this subject. It appears that your only goal here is to promote your company, and that is not allowed. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 13:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]