User talk:Cbk780

Speedy deletion of Cognetics Corporation
A tag has been placed on Cognetics Corporation, 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 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. Editor437 (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your concerns are noted, though I deleted the talk page you posted - Talk pages can't exist without the article, per policy. I haven't had a chance to read the deleted article, but I'd recommend that you read through some of our policies to get an idea as to why this article might have been deleted. In most cases, an article that is neutral in tone, backed by verifiable and reliable sources independent of the subject, will be fine. You might want to draft an article in your userspace, probably at User:Cbk780/Cognetics, where you can get feedback before posting it as an actual article - and I'd be happy to assist with that, if you wish. Please feel free to leave a message at my talk page, should you have any questions. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I guess I am a bit confused about how to navigate the various pages and get the discussion going but I'm sure the process will be useful in helping me understand how it all works. I think your idea about drafting the article and getting your input would be great. I would appreciate your reading the deleted article -- I kept it very short and (I thought) non-commercial in order to avoid this problem. Obviously I failed in some fashion and do not want to make the same error again. Thanks again for your constructive reply. Charlie.

Charlie Kreitzberg (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Cognetics Corporation
You said:
 * I disagree with your speedy deletion of my article on Cognetics Corporation. I am not certain as to how to initiate the discussion.
 * I added a talk page to the article with my position. However, if this is not correct, please advise as to how to proceed.
 * Let me say, that I understand your concern. However, it is not my attempt to create advertising and if you look at the text of the article, you will see that there are no references to any products or activities within the past 10 years.
 * Cognetics was one of the first firms to create the field of user experience. Some of its early work was very influential and should be documented for its contributions to the field.
 * I am happy to revise the article to meet any Wikipedia standards if I have violated them but I do not believe that your speedy deletion -- especially without discussion is appropriate.
 * What is the best mechanism for resolving this?
 * Charlie Charlie Kreitzberg (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you would be Charles Kreitzberg, CEO of Cognetics Corporation, yes? In which case please see Conflict of interest. The best way to "resolve" this is to wait until somebody entirely independent of your company, one of the millions of established Wikipedia users without a conflict of interest, chooses to create an article. Sorry, that's how it is. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
I understand the terms and read the guidelines before creating the article. I understand (and agree with) the concerns these guidelines address and agree it's difficult for people involved in work to be totally neutral. That having said, the article in questions was only a few sentences long and as neutral and non-commercial as I was capable of creating. It was spurred by the fact that there are several links to the term in various places in Wikipedia and these were not created by me but by others. My desire is simply to have a place for the links to resolve.

Let me point out that in accord with the Guidelines, I have disclosed my interest on my talk page.

Of course I was aware that I might get some push back from the article and thought long and hard before adding it. I am completely comfortable with its being discussed and being revised by others. But the editorial decision to delete it as "blatant advertising" within hours is not, in my opinion, editorially correct, does not accord with the guidelines as I read them and certainly makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

I do not have the desire to engage in a lot of debate that cannot be resolved. And I suspect that this may (rightly) be a "hot button" with many who edit Wikipedia and I don't want to get into that kind of argument. But neither do I feel that the deletion should go unchallenged.

Charlie Charlie Kreitzberg (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)