User talk:Bblanc

Magillem Design Services
A tag has been placed on Magillem Design Services, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant 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 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Magillem Design Services and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. 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 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. Spiesr (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Magillem Design Services
I deleted this article because it was written like an advertisement. The points that you made on my talk page might contribute toward an assertion of notability for this company, but unfortunately they were not in the actual article. There was already a discussion of the article in March (Articles for deletion/Magillem) where the consensus was to delete, and the version of the article that I deleted had even less information.

I suggest that you work on the article in your user space for now (e.g. at User:Bblanc/Magillem) and keep in mind the guidelines presented at WP:CORP. If you are believe that the article meets Wikipedia standards, present your case at WP:Deletion review to see whether it is ready to return to the main article space. Regards, ... disco spinster  talk  19:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I will have a look this weekend. ...  disco spinster   talk  19:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * that's great news. Thanks for your involvement. Feel free to ask if needed and of course all comments are welcome. Enjoy your week-end. Bertrand Blanc (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some comments to the article outlining what needs to be done. The main issues are:
 * It's still written in a promotional tone (using peacock terms like "innovative" and "one-of-a-kind"), and it looks like a lot of the text was copied directly from the Magillem web page.
 * that's right. I took some section from the web, including their web-site.


 * The subject of the article is apt to be confusing to laypersons. It should be written in an easy-to-understand style for those who are not familiar with computer engineering.
 * This is the point: who is the audience. I was involved in another article about endianness, I wonder who can understand the article beyond "experts" or people having enough knowledge to understand. The article should have enough content to be up to par. Wikipedia is a collaborative place: up to other people to modify it according to their standpoint. I don't want to be the author of the article, but only the enabler to write down my standpoint.


 * More non-trivial mentions of the company or its product by third-party, reliable sources would be helpful.
 * 3 references where given: The SPIRIT Consortium official web-site, and papers jointly written with huge well-known companies in the field which co-signed these papers.


 * I hope this clarifies things. Another place to get some pointers is at the Drawing Board.  ...  disco spinster   talk  17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Redfarmer (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I know but I forget 50% of the time :( I'll try to remember before committing the post. Thanks to remind me :) Bertrand Blanc (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

belated response

 * Hey, sorry for letting your question on my talk page slip by. I gave my opinion at the Deletion Review, others gave theirs. The community decides how to interpret the guidelines. They do not always agree with me, That does not necessarily make me wrong -- at least in my own opinion -- but their decision stands and must be accepted. The proper course is to try to write as strong an article as possible, put it in your user space, and ask for reconsideration. Follow the guidelines at our Business FAQ for proper content and the necessary sourcing.  You basically need 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases),  showing why the company is notable. Don';t just inert it in main space without taking it back to deletion review, explaining how the article is improved.   DGG (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)