User talk:Dirtydrew

The page Regal Maid has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be blatant advertising which only promotes something, and which is unlikely to be suitable for an article (or at best would need a fundamental rewrite). Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of anything, whether a company, product, group, service, person, religious or political belief, or anything else. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Regal Maid


A tag has been placed on Regal Maid, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to 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 tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance 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. Sparthorse (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Regal Maid
The article you wrote had several serious issues. First, it did not have any independent, published sources. All Wikipedia articles are required to have sources, so the information they contain can be verified by readers. Because there were no sources, the article did not show how Regal Maid was notable and specifically how it met Wikipedia's standards for notability of articles about companies. Lastly, the article was written in a promotional style that clearly breached Wikipedia's rules on maintaining a neutral point of view.

As for the MaidPro article, two points. First, just because one article doesn't obey Wikipedia's rules, it doesn't mean your article can also break the rules. Instead of using a random article as the model for your article, it would be much better to read and understand the basic tules of Wikipedia, several of which I've pointed you to above. Secondly, the MaidPro article has all the flaws I've mentioned above and so I have nominated it for deletion, just as I did for yours.

I hope this helps, Sparthorse (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)