User talk:DB71187

HOTSOUP
Please stop recreating the HOTSOUP article in its current form. See WP:CSD Articles section 7 and 11 to see why it is being removed. If you continue without discussion or change, you and your co-hort may be blocked for disruption. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the other gentleman and temporarily resolved the HOTSOUP issue pending discussion. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Wildthing61476 17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD Etiquette
Hello. Thank you for writing the HOTSOUP article. I saw your vote on the AfD, but that it was unsigned. I also saw multiple votes cast by you. I just wanted to let you know that it's never a good idea to make an unsigned vote in an AfD debate, especially on an article you authored. It's also never a good idea to vote multiple times. It's considered poor form and bad etiquette. It's always important to disclose any bias you have, and as the author of the article, it is only natural to have a bias for keep. Please see AfD Etiquette for more information. The debate history does show your vote, and I added a comment to make it clear the vote was cast by you to the AfD discussion, and that there were multiple votes cast by the same user. In the future, just please keep in mind that removing AfD tags from the article or recreating the article repeatedly, casting unsigned and undisclosed keep votes for your own article, and casting multiple votes may cause other editors to frown on your actions. Remember that editors are only human and that the eloquence of your response to the AfD process may affect their decisions about the fate of the article. AubreyEllenShomo 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your multiple repeated votes and deletion of other comments on AfD are unacceptable. As AES has said above, this must stop.  If you continue, then you will be blocked.  'Gaming' the AfD, really silly. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Help with article form
Repost of a comment I made in the AfD:
 * Dear, DB71187. I apperciate your question, but AfD is not the place to ask.  I would check out the[New Contributor's Help Page].  I'd also look at WP:ORG for the notability guidelines, and WP:ADVERT for help on why it's been considered an advertisement, and how to prevent that.  AubreyEllenShomo 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Some Additional Help:
 * I would check out the help forum link from my previous post. I'd also read through the two links I sent you.  They establish what makes an article notable, and how to make it not look like an advertisement.  Remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not facebook, and not a web hosting company.  Articles here need to be encyclopedic.  Remember that to not qualify for speedy deletion, your article must assert the notability of the subject.  You have to say why it qualifies for inclusion under WP:ORG.  You should also include references to newspaper articles, etc, to help show notability.  The CSD A7 warning you saw refers to this notability issue.  You can see the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:SPEEDY.  I'd also check out some other company articles here, such as Microsoft, Apple Computer, and Dow_Jones.   AubreyEllenShomo 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Repost of a comment made in the AfD by UncleG:
 * Cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Notability:
 * As Uncle G mentioned in the AfD, WP:WEB would also apply to HOTSOUP. In fact, WP:WEB is probably better than WP:ORG.  Basically, look at WP:N and show notablility in any of the catagories that your article falls under.  That will show it qualifies for inclusion.  Then, all it needs are WP:NPOV (a neutral point of view), so it's journalistic, and not an ad, and WP:STYLE (the style guidelines) so it looks good.  If I recall, it already had good style, so you're part way to an article that would improve wikipedia.  AubreyEllenShomo 18:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)