User talk:Beechre

Alboum & Associates
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion.

Spam in Alboum & Associates
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Alboum & Associates, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Alboum & Associates is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Alboum & Associates, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
The recent edit you made to Sandra Alboum constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Alboum & Associates Deletion
I see the article you were working on was deleted. I think the issue was that there was twofold. First there was a lack of Notability. Secondly, the article lacking notability was considered too much like an advertisement. Unfortunately, just because a company exists does not mean it will end up in Wikipedia, there has to be something that creates importance for that company.

In the case of A&A, did it create a new patented method that was simplified translation process so that it was now available to Martians or was it the first company that translated a previously unreadable version of the Dead Sea Scrolls? I am being somewhat humorous here, but I am sure you get the idea. Once that notability is established, then it needs to be independently verifiable. This can be via independent references in Google, but generally, it is not something generated by the company.

I hope this helps a little and good luck on your articles... ttonyb1 (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)