User talk:Sarah Paterson/Archive Deletion

Speedy deletion of AASECT

A tag has been placed on AASECT, 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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Your message

Well untill a Admin looks at the article, it will stay but if a admin decides it's written like a advert it will get removed. For example look at how you wrote the sections:

"AASECT recognizes" "AASECT believes"

What I am saying is, it seems like a advert from how it is written. But you can try to improve the article so that doesn't happen! Good luck on Wikipedia --Kanonkas :  Take Contact  17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The key is to use your own words. If this organization is notable, there should be plenty of third-party sources with more impartial descriptions of what it is these folks do and what they want. If there aren't, that speaks to the notability of the organization. We need more than a raw data dump from their website. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mission statements are iffy, because they tend to put the organization's best foot forward. (I'll look at the ALA article later.) As a rule, any organization is bound to have a non-neutral point of view and conflict of interest about itself, and nowhere more so than in its own publications for public consumption, from press release to website and mission statement. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

An article about the organization has been requested already. I'd advise you to look at the article somebody else crafts, and improve it as needed, keeping it on your watchlist. Given the organizations' area of expertise, I cynically suspect there will be sabotage and vandalism by the usual gang of idiots; protection will be needed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)