User talk:Cscomm

AmeriCare Alliance
A tag has been placed on AmeriCare Alliance, 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 AmeriCare Alliance 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. Accounting4Taste: talk 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. My first recommendation is to read  Why was my article deleted? and Your first article.  Then -- there are two boundaries within Wikipedia between which it's very difficult to steer, with respect to creating an article for a company.  One is notability -- the company must be stated and proved to be important or unusual in some way -- and the other is advertising -- the company cannot be creating an article merely to further its commercial desires.  The path that winds between those barriers is a tough one to get right.  What I usually recommend is twofold.  The first step is to assemble everything that has ever been written ONLY by arm's-length third-party experts in reputable publications, and synthesize that information -- leaving out your own personal opinion.  And when I say opinion, I mean right down to your choice of adjectives.  If someone else didn't use that adjective, you don't either.  You must try to create a portrait of the company entirely by using other experts' opinions and comments, even if -- especially if -- they are unflattering.  It's difficult, and not always possible, but I think that solution would suit you best.  The other solution, if the first is not possible -- for instance, if there's not enough sources to synthesize a well-rounded portrait -- is to then find an article that covers in an abstract way what the company's product is, and carefully add references there.  For instance, you might try to contribute to an article on the company's core focus in health care.  This is more difficult -- editors are always on the lookout for the potential for "spamming" -- and less informative, but it's the best secondary method I can recommend.  What you might legitimately be able to add is as little as an "external link" to your company at the bottom of an article about the company's main product.  I recognize that this is not liable to be a very satisfying course of action, but Wikipedia is very stern about its standards.  If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a further note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 18:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your username
Is Cscomm a business name by any chance? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)