User talk:Anguspickton

Speedy deletion of Metriq
I've updated the page to make it more informative about what the software does, and removed the emphasis of the company that makes the product Anguspickton (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article still has no references (references need to be from independent reliable sources), and as such would probably still qualify for deletion under rationale G1 (fails to assert notability). dramatic (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Metriq, 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 Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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. dramatic (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Metriq
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Metriq, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * does not meet WP:CORP has been tagged requesting improvements since May.

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  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.  D OUBLE B LUE (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:wiki insertion
Good day Anguspickton. I don't recall exactly the article referenced above but I suggested at the time that it did not seem to meet our WP:Core content policies as demonstrated by the WP:CORP guidelines. All Wikipedia articles are required to have sufficient coverage in Reliable sources that a Verifiable and Neutral point of view article without Original research is possible. If an article can be written that relies on references to independent, secondary sources, then it should be admitted to Wikipedia. I'm sure that you understand that we must guard against spam and articles of either a promotional or derogatory point of view. Should there not be sufficient secondary sources at this time, you might consider submitting to other sites that permit such articles such as MyWikiBiz.

My username references my support of the Toronto Argonauts whose colours are Oxford and Cambridge Blue.

Regards, Double Blue  (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I agree that the datacom disambiguation page was in need of attention and have attempted a clean-up. Cheers! Double Blue  (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)