User talk:Alexis820

Speedy deletion nomination of FORCE Therapeutics


A tag has been placed on FORCE Therapeutics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. QU TalkQu 17:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Note
Hello, please don't be discouraged if your article is deleted as many new editors find this happens. Wikipedia has a number of content guidelines that take a while to understand. The article you've written reads just like an advert. If you are new to editing it is a good idea to read some of the content guidelines first and maybe create an article at AfC first where experienced editors can give you advice. Good luck. QU TalkQu 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles
You haven't been 'denied' in the sense of not being allowed something that is a right. No company (or individual) has a right to have an article here. Those that do are usually in compliance with our policies. (Those that aren't will be caught up with...) First for companies is WP:CORP. And equally important for all articles is WP:RS. This is about the reliable independent sources that are needed - and what they must be like. Your two were reliable and independent, so far as I can see (not knowing the two places), but they were hardly coverage. One was a brief paragraph in an article about start-ups. The other was an article about start-ups written with this company as an example. What's needed is coverage about the company to show it makes it under CORP. 'Start-up' is not the best thing for here, either. Remember that this isn't a directory. We don't list everything from IBM down to the flower stall in the market. This is an encyclopaedia. We don't list the up and coming, we list the arrived (and the past it too). Another very important thing to watch is style. Look at WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM. Don't let any sort of PR person near your draft. They are sudden death to any hopes of getting on here. No solutions, passions, uniqueness, 'we' and 'our', driven - oh, you know the stuff. Every PR department or company churns out the same meaningless drivel. And other people imitate it because they think it must mean something (it doesn't) (just like people over here think that they have a garage 'to' the rear of their house, instead of 'at' the rear - thanks to drivelling estate agents). If you think you can comply with CORP and have RS to prove it, message a regular editor or admin and ask them to comment. (Some are politer than others - the opinions shouldn't differ too much.) Peridon (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)