User talk:Blletts

Welcome!

Hello, Blletts, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of GroupRaise

Hello Blletts,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GroupRaise for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Talk:GroupRaise

I noticed you had commented on the talk page here. That particular talk page had to be deleted (an article talk page is not permitted to remain if its corresponding article has been deleted), so wanted to make sure you'd still get a response. For reference, your comment was "This page should not be speedily deleted because it's my first time creating a Wikipedia article and I'm still learning! The intention was not to be a promotional page, I would love to know how to revise my page so it upholds the standards of being an informative encyclopedia article. Thank you!"

The article was deleted under criterion G11 of the speedy deletion criteria as being promotional. First off (and not singling you out, I remind everyone who had a G11 deletion and asked about it), if you are being paid or compensated to edit Wikipedia (including being asked or expected to do so as a duty of employment), you must disclose that fact in the manner laid out on the page I linked previously. If any of the previous applies to you, such disclosure is mandatory prior to any further editing in regards to the subject. In response to specific concerns with the article, it had a lot of sales brochure material such as "The company presents itself as the most delicious way to change the world and believes in doing so one meal at a time." and "Hosting a GroupRaise fundraiser is not only beneficial for a restaurant's community relations, but business as well. GroupRaise is one of the best ways to increase capacity and revenue for restaurants. A GroupRaise meal can bring 20-200 customers to a restaurant with statistics showing that out of 100 people who attend a GroupRaise event, 40 are new clients, 82 will spend more than average, and 96 will become repeat customers." (probably the most egregious example). We also don't need an exhaustive list of customers. If reliable sources have indicated that a few customers are particularly significant, we could attribute that view to them.

As to references, the "Nathan Lustig" site is not a reliable source, so we wouldn't present anything off of it as fact, and since it doesn't appear all that significant, shouldn't even really present anything off of it as attributed opinion either. It looks like just essentially a blog. Similarly, the "Campus news" site should be used with great caution; that type of reference is not independent as a university has an interest in highlighting and showcasing its students and alumni. NYUNews appears to be a student newspaper, which is very marginal; though they can under some circumstances be okay, they're not great toward establishing notability. We really want to see multiple independent sources covering a subject in significant detail (not just name drops or brief mentions). If that type of reference material doesn't exist, GroupRaise isn't really an appropriate subject for an article right now. If it does, you can give it another try (I highly suggest that new editors use the draft processes rather than trying to write a new article right into the encyclopedia; that's a challenge even for experienced editors), but ensuring to stick to only facts verified by your references and summarizing them in a neutral rather than promotional fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seraphimblade thank you for taking the time to get back to me! I appreciate all your feedback, I think being interested in startups, their business models etc I was quick to include information I found interesting and not necessary relevant for an encyclopedia purpose. I was under the impression when creating the article I was going so as a draft, so I was surprised to save it and have the page published. Now that I have a better idea of the process and requirements I can re-evaluate if my efforts are worth it in this moment. Thanks!

No troubles. If you're interested in startups, you might try contacting the project dealing with company articles. They might be able to direct you toward some articles on startups that could do with some work, or that might be good subjects for new articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]