User talk:Jg gers906

The article Scott Gallacher has been or soon will be deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. If/when he ever appears for the first team, feel free to repost the article. NawlinWiki 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page "Espresso Essential Scotland"

A page you created, or image you uploaded, Espresso Essential Scotland, has been deleted in accordance with our deletion policy. In particular, it meets the one or more criteria for speedy deletion; the relevant criterion is:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable notability guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content; it will be deleted again and may be protected from re-creation. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article. If you have any questions, please contact an administrator for assistance. Thank you – Gurch 17:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jg gers906 wrote:

I would like to ask you how this violates your system? I clearly don't believe that I was trying to promote a company, as you said in your relevant message. Also, I wish to ask how you allow articles such as Kwik-Fit or Asda to remain, as I believe that is a company, isn't it? I wish you to take my comments on board and please reply me with an answer, because I am very annoyed and angry!

`Espresso Essential Scotland is the Scottish-based franchise of worldwide coffee company Espresso Essential. The head office is in Glasgow, and the coffee is great. It is also unique coffee, as it in 99% fat free! Look out for Espresso Essential adverts coming soon!`

Yes, you were trying to promote a company. I think "Look out for Espresso Essential adverts coming soon!" is conclusive evidence of that. The Asda and Kwik-Fit do not read like advertising, this does. Merely being a company does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia; an assertion of notability and reliable sources are required, as are various other things all of which are mentioned in the pages linked to in the previous messages you recieved – Gurch 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I shall try to explain in a little more detail. The following policies and guidelines are all applicable to this situation in one way or another:

Neutral point of view: The phrase "The coffee is great" violates the neutral point of view policy, which states that articles should not be biased, either in favour of or against their subject.
Advertising: The phrase "Look out for Espresso Essential adverts coming soon!" contains no useful information and reads like an excerpt from a promotional document of some description. This violates the no advertising policy.
Notability: The article fails to satisfy notability, which is required of all articles about companies or corporations, by asserting the importance or significance of the subject. Note that while the subject itself may very well be notable, that means nothing unless an assertion of notablility is actually provided in the article itself.
Notability (companies and corporations): As a result, the article also fails to satify our more specific notability guidelines for companies and corporations. Again, while the subject of the article may meet one or more of these criteria, unless this is asserted in the article the article does not satisfy the guideline.
Citing sources: Your article does not cite any sources for the claims provided. Citing sources is essential in an encyclopediaic article as it allows readers and other editors to check that the information is correct.
Reliable sources: More specifically, it lacks reliable sources, as it links only to the company's own website. This is not a reliable source as it is directly controlled by the subject of the article. An ideal reliable source would be an independently published work of some description, whether a book, a magazine article, a newspaper story, an online publication, or something else.
Verifiability: Because of the lack of sources, the information in the article is not verifiable. Readers and editors have no way of knowing whether the statements you make in the article are true or false, without some way to check them.
What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is commonly mistaken, and misused, for a number of things which it is not. You may find it useful to review the list of things on this page.
Ownership: You do not own your contributions; the Wikimedia Foundation does, as by submitting them you released them under a free license. When you go to the edit page you are presented with a message that reads, "Your contributions will be released under the GFDL." Further down you can also find the message, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". "Merciless editing" covers anything up to and including deletion; you agreed when you submitted your content to allow anyone – anyone in the world – to do whatever they want with your article.
Civility: Contributors to this project are expected to act in a civil manner. Referring to me as an "arrogant toad" is likely to be viewed as incivil.
No personal attacks: That comment also violates this more specific policy, which states that personal attacks against users are not tolerated.

Once you have addressed the above issues, your article will most likely be accepted (though I cannot guarantee that another editor will not nominate it for deletion). – Gurch 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Skeoch

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Jack Skeoch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Kathy A. 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Espresso Essential Scotland

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Espresso Essential Scotland, 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]