User talk:Debbieanne

Speedy deletion of White cliffs foundation

A tag has been placed on White cliffs foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant 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 our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of White cliffs foundation

A tag has been placed on White cliffs foundation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant 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 our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Victao lopes (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi's, Coca-Cola's and Burger King's articles are not advertising, and those are clearly notable companies. Different from yours, unless you could show us why do your company deserves an article at Wikipedia. Read our Your First Article page, and our Policies too. Thank you. And please, discuss the issue at the article's Talk page, not at the article. And also remember to sign your posts with

~~~~

. Victao lopes (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems your article's been deleted, that's too bad. I suggest you to read this article before creating another article about a company. And don't you ever think about recreating it unless you change it completely until it is written under our policies, because otherwise, it's just going to be deleted again, and you'll be in a serious danger of being blocked from editing. Thank you. Victao lopes (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victao said the important things. An article here has to be neutral, must not promote the subject, and has to be notable. You said that "Wikipedia doesn't understand about PR messaging"; in fact Wikipedia is specifically designed not to be part of anyone's PR campaign, which is part of the reason the article was deleted. Your foundation sounds admirable and I wish it well, but we have to stick to the aims of Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DJ Clayworth, indeed. And as for you, Debbieanne, I see you completely missed the points, in a way that I assumedly can't even reply, because I honestly don't know where to begin with. Before calling me blind, you should consider that even after reading the policies and guidelines you didn't make a good article, which makes me wonder who's blind here. I've read Coca-Cola article, and I believe you’ve only considered it an advertising (under your conception, of course) because of the large number of pictures, although they are only illustrating the article. Your article really featured references, but the problem is that it is written like an advertising, firstly because it has sentences beginning with we are...our goal is... etc, secondly because it does not keep a neutral point of view. If you don't agree with our policies, you can just leave. I hope that's how it works on your foundation: Once someone entered, this person must act like you guys hope him/her to act. ‘Cause otherwise, everything becomes a mess ;). And note that stating that you intend "to send our message", you automatically assume your article has the only purpose of self-promoting the company. Victao lopes (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]