User talk:Angus.goldfinch
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Intercai Mondiale UK Limited. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Natalie 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "deletion thingy", but the article is being deleted because it does not assert notability, which is a core requirement. The second version you created was deleted because Wikipedia doesn't use placeholder articles. As far as Dublin and Minneapolis, there are far more people in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro than in the Dublin metro, so I'm not sure why Galway, which is even smaller, would be a better fit. Natalie 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, the notability information was for a different article. Your article was deleted because it was promotional, and Wikipedia has a strict policy against spam. Natalie 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually not vacationing in Dublin, I'm going to be living there for the summer. My college has a co-operative education program, so I'm fulfilling that requirement. Part of the idea is to live somewhere different - I grew up in Minneapolis, I now live in rural Ohio, I spent four months living in Washington, D.C., all like night and day from each other.
- Anyway, I'm guessing that by Spectrum Strategy you mean Spectrum Strategy Consultants. Part of the problem with the article you created is the lack of an encyclopediac tone (use of the first person, promotional language). The other problem is a lack of references asserting that the company is notable. I would recommend reading the general notability criteria and the specific criteria about companies and corporations, but the core idea is that a subject of a Wikipedia article must be the subject of multiple, non-trivial works whose source is independent of the subject. By non-trivial we mean the work is completely about the company, not just a passing mention in the newspaper or something. So if the company has been profiled in a reliable source (a US equivalent would be Business Week, not sure what the UK version of this would be) then that would be a good source. Natalie 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there may be sources out there still doesn't address the tone of the article - it read like a promotional brochure. Also, it is incumbent on the user who the article is notable to demonstrate that by finding sources. If you think the business is notable, re-create the article (with sources and minus the sales-pitch language) and I won't delete it. I can't guarantee no one else will, though. Not sure what you meant by "no daylight", so I hope that wasn't too important. Natalie 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your article was deleted because an editor tagged it as not meeting the central notability criterion. The tag puts it on a list of articles that should be speedily deleted, which is how I came to it. The article, as it was written when it was deleted, did not meet policy, and it doesn't matter how many other articles don't meet policy. If somebody else is breaking the rules by having an article about a non-notable company on Wikipedia, that doesn't make it okay for you to break the rules. If you feel that Spectrum Strategy Consultants should not have an article on Wikipedia, than please nominate it for deletion here. Natalie 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that there may be sources out there still doesn't address the tone of the article - it read like a promotional brochure. Also, it is incumbent on the user who the article is notable to demonstrate that by finding sources. If you think the business is notable, re-create the article (with sources and minus the sales-pitch language) and I won't delete it. I can't guarantee no one else will, though. Not sure what you meant by "no daylight", so I hope that wasn't too important. Natalie 20:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'm guessing that by Spectrum Strategy you mean Spectrum Strategy Consultants. Part of the problem with the article you created is the lack of an encyclopediac tone (use of the first person, promotional language). The other problem is a lack of references asserting that the company is notable. I would recommend reading the general notability criteria and the specific criteria about companies and corporations, but the core idea is that a subject of a Wikipedia article must be the subject of multiple, non-trivial works whose source is independent of the subject. By non-trivial we mean the work is completely about the company, not just a passing mention in the newspaper or something. So if the company has been profiled in a reliable source (a US equivalent would be Business Week, not sure what the UK version of this would be) then that would be a good source. Natalie 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
[edit]Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 19:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Intercai mondiale, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Intercai, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)