Talk:TASC, Inc.

Speedy deletion nomination of The Analytic Sciences Corporation

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 The Analytic Sciences Corporation, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam andWikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind talk14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Big Wind: I was very surprised to find your notice of Speedy deletion nomination for this article. Sorry, but where is the SPAM or self-promotion? The article cites either facts or (in one instance) a claim by TASC, namely its self-description -- caveated by statement "The firm describes itself as" thus making this also a fact-only statement. PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY: (1) The firm is new, so there is little history or information available -- that's why I wrote it. (2) What you may have taken for "advertising" is in fact rather negative -- if you read through the entry, you might notice that the firm has had (a) very few wins of note since inception and (b) a clearly implied open seasoning of firing (because of rehiring) -- information TASC no doubt would _not_ like to have published. In which case, let me state here clearly that I have no affinity nor affiliation with TASC: can you please state the same?--Aboudaqn (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article for Wikipedia must concentrale on the bare facts. The whole section "Recent news" is in fact promoting the company by telling amongst others about contracts (and their values) and people. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Big Wind, please read this and reflect Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. If you disagree then take it up with Jimmy.--Aspro (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a newcomer, more then 1700 edits and 19 articles...Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bare facts" -- again, Night of the Big Wind, you need to read carefully. I have stated clearly that TASC is a company barely two (2) years old, so what I have contributed comprises the barest of facts: few are available. I repeat my request that you leave this article stand on its firm, Wikipedia-embracing merits.--Aboudaqn (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And? You just stated that is is a new company that is not (yet?) notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]