User talk:PsytranceGuru

Speedy deletion nomination of Decor Cabinets Ltd

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 Decor Cabinets Ltd, 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 encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Although you gave many references, too many were to local sources for Morden/Pembina. If the company is truly notable (and I'm not sure that 127th is), you should be able to give more references from outside your home town, such as the Vancouver Sun or US newspapers. Home town newspapers are always going to support a large local employer, so more outside sources would improve credibility too
You have hidden away the financial stuff and number of employees in an infobox. You need this in the text to establish notability, and it also looks spammy when you leave out that sort of information and just tell us what the company sells
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of claims presented as fact include: focused on producing... Due to customer demand... high quality... triggered a growth surge... manufactures medium- to high-end custom products... celebrate outstanding achievements in North American kitchen and bath design within Decor's own designer network... The success of Decor Cabinets... Decor Cabinets hopes to continue growing its sales revenues and increasing its market share within North America, while making a positive difference in people's lives... that lend a compassionate hand to those in need... Decor Cabinets lends a hand to those in need around the world... Decor Cabinets promotes responsible environment practices.— there are too many compny claims presented as if they were verified facts. Company articles are viewed with suspicion, for obvious reasons, and you need to get the tone right.
You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I've seen much worse than this. You could recreate here, out of the direct line of fire, and ask me to take a look when you are ready. Three further points, unrelated to the deleteion

headings should have normal capitalisation, just first word capped
references should immediately follow punctuation, not precede.
I notice that you have added images with a fair use rationale. The second one may be challenged since there is no reason why it can't be replaced by a free image. Best to take a new photo, not published elsewhere, and release it under our default CC BY-SA 3.0 image license. It's possible to donate images previously published elsewhere to Wikipedia, but it's simpler just to take a new pic if you can.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The new version is a lot better, main problem is the lead

is a Manitoba based manufacturer focused on producing custom kitchen...&"focused" is a weasel word, just your opinion. Stick to manufacturer of custom...

The lead section is supposed to summarise the article. Better to put the facts that make it notable here (number of employees, 127th here, and move the somewhat spammy second paragraph The company was able to gain market share despite fierce competition... to History

When you have done that, you might as well post it and see what happens. Use the "Move" tab, don't cut and paste. If you can't see the Move tab, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Decor Cabinets Ltd.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Decor Cabinets Ltd.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]