User talk:Bdgls

Welcome!

Hello, Bdgls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Ourinternet, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Ourinternet


A tag has been placed on Ourinternet, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so 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 the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
(I don't know for certain it is from you, but I think it is a reasonable guess.)

Feedback on User:Bdgls/Ourinternet
There are several examples of wording that are problematic:
 * "The company is one of the leading providers" You can't say this without adequate sourcing, and even if you can find adequate sourcing, many editors (including myself) don't think it is appropriate wording. It is what the marketing department says, not an encyclopedia.
 * "packed with advanced features" In a word, no. Not acceptable.
 * "Next step forward" See above
 * "carving out a new niche" See above
 * "Our Internet cloud servers are a good alternative" Not acceptable with sourcing, and even then, not advisable.
 * "without investing a fortune" This is advertising not encyclopedia phrasing --  SPhilbrick  T  12:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Will try to fix that leaving only facts and related sourcing.

Bdgls (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed all your remarks. Can you please take a look and let me know whether the page looks better now and can be restored?

Bdgls (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding so quickly.


 * My biggest remaining concern is weakness regarding reliable sources. Please read the link but the key sentence is:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.


 * You have included five references, but some are to the subjects site. I'm not familiar with Parallels or Web Hosting Stuff, but neither of them appear to qualify. -- SPhilbrick  T  15:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. What can be actually reliable in this world... Any case, Web Hosting Stuff is considered to be an authority and reliable source with more than 10,000 of reviews on various web hosting providers and services. Parallels is a multi-national corporation with offices in North America, Europe and Asia. They considered to be one of the leaders in server/desktop virtualization technologies (for example CNet review http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10451102-263.html). That's why I considered them to be reliable sources. I'm going to add a few more sources in future while updating the content.

Bdgls (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey SPhilbrick, just wondering whether you saw my last message. Not sure whether a user talk section has proper notifications. Hope on your feedback.

Bdgls (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got your message, will look now.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, you wondered about "whether a user talk section has proper notifications" Yes and no. Everyone has a WP:WATCHLIST, which does indicate when someone edits a page on the list. Your talk page is on my watchlist, so had I been monitoring my watchlist, I should have seen it. However, I have 4800 pages on my watchlist, so that method of notification is not working for me. I need to work out something, but that's really my fault not yours. heads up many editors (who manage to monitor their watchlist regularly) do not like Talkback messages. However, I'm not one of them, so feel free to send me a talkback if I'm not responding. Or, as you did, post on my talk page - I do get a notification of that.-- SPhilbrick  T  11:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re Web Hosting Stuff
Sorry, but you still have a ways to go. There are debates on Wikipedia about how many sources (qualifying as a reliable source) are needed, and in rare instances, one is enough, but it has to be quite good. IMO opinion web hosting stuff does not meet the requirements. They host reviews, but anyone could write a review. I tried, and it looks like I could write one. If they prohibit the company itself from writing a review about themselves, I didn't see it. The review on OurInternet.us was clearly written by someone close to the company.

I grant that I didn't look closely, and I may have misunderstood the site. If you would like another opinion, the formal way to determine whether a source qualifies as a reliable source is to ask at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I checked the archives, and did not see that it has been discussed in the past. -- SPhilbrick  T  11:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi SPhilbrick - thanks for your feedback and information. Regarding sources - in the web hosting field there is a type of review sites that are making reviews using a similar template structure. But all of them are pre-moderated. What about another OurInternet review http://www.bestresellerwebhost.com/articles19.html. Does it qualify?

Bdgls (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Moderation helps a lot. I missed the evidence of moderation. However, I think even a moderated review is far weaker than discussion in newspapers or general news magazines. Is there any such coverage?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no newspaper/magazine articles at the moment... Hope this can be added later, when expanding the content part of OurInternet Wikipedia page. Can the page go live in the current edition?

Bdgls (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would counsel against it, but it is your call. (You can click on the move button). If I saw the article tagged for deletion, I would delete it (except I have a personal rule that I try to avoid deleting articles when I'm in discussion with the main editor, but had I not had a conversation with you, and saw it as is, I would support deletion.) However, I am sometimes surprised at what survives deletion requests and what doesn't, so I could be wrong. -- SPhilbrick  T  14:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. The main drawback of the current version is the lack of authority reference sources as I understand? But not all of the content in Wikipedia, especially in the niche fields has them. I guess it's a very common issue for the start-up niche pages, but now the article thanks to your help looks much better.

Bdgls (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that is the main concern.-- SPhilbrick  T  15:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! Moved the article to the open space. Hopefully, editors understand that the new authority reference sources will be added as the content grows.

Speedy deletion nomination of Ourinternet


A tag has been placed on Ourinternet requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)