User talk:Blv81

Thanks for your note. I'm going to suggest that the problem with the article is that it was not based on reliable sources. A very basic principle of Wikipedia is that it's not what you have to say about the topic that counts, it's what other people have to say, and how you can assemble that expertise into an article with references and citations is what makes a good article. For companies, there's a very fine line between being a non-notable company, on the one hand, and advertising, on the other, so you have a difficult job ahead of you.

What I would recommend you do is start from the beginning and assemble all the sources -- opinions about the company from arm's-length third-party experts published in verifiable sources -- and see if you can construct an article using only that material. The first paragraph can contain a brief description of the company; where it is headquartered and the business that it is in, that you write from your own knowledge. But the minute you get into telling people about the competitive features of its products, like that it offers "customized mobile services which enables to benefit of economies of scale" -- that's your opinion, and that's advertising. Can you prove, by reference to a third-party expert, that it enables those benefits? It can only be part of the article if you can prove it, and it has to be proven without reference to material that the company generates itself. There were a lot of unsourced opinion statements in the article, which is why an editor tagged it as advertising. The other thing that the article needs is expert opinion that it is notable -- why it is better than other companies at doing what it does. That wasn't really there either. Without an assertion of notability, and proof of it, again, by reference to third-party experts, the company will not be thought of as notable and thus will be tagged for deletion. (I said this was difficult!!)

It's certainly all right to use paper sources to provide references. You can find plenty of material on Wikipedia that will show you how to cite those references; just look at another article that uses print-based references and examine how they're cited using the "edit this page" function.

Below this note, I'm going to leave you a standard "welcome" message that will put a lot of basic resources at your fingertips in one location. Instead of trying to copy other articles, I recommend starting with Your first article and other resources that you'll find in the welcome message, including learning what the basic principles of Wikipedia are. If you have further questions about Wikipedia policy, you can certainly leave me a note and I'll help you if I can. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sympac logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sympac logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sympac


A tag has been placed on Sympac 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)