User talk:Dmcnabb5

A tag has been placed on Thefurniture.com, 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 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 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 the page 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.

'''An article with this title has been deleted for blatant advertising twice before. It is being actively watched, and any attempts to re-create this article will result in a very speedy deletion and possible blocking of the author. Realkyhick 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone keeps saying that it is blatant advertising but will not tell me how to fix it. PLEASE tell me how to add sources and I will ensure that the article has encyclopedic information. I am simply informing people about the site. No where in the article do you see me encouraging them to buy from the website. Therefore, I do not see why it is "blatant advertising."


 * Your language is way too praiseworthy of the site, telling about how "useful" it is. You were obviously promoting the site. If you could have cited some independent, reliable sources where others verify the importance or notability of the site, the article may have stood a chance. But as it stood, it was pretty obvious that your were promoting the supposed virtues of the site, which is against Wikipedia policy. Realkyhick 17:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I changed more things in the article and added sources. Do you think that it is fine now, and what do you suggest I improve/get rid of/add? I promise to be very compliant, so please let me know of all of your suggestions. Thank you! Dmcnabb5 16:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI - you should preface you first comment on the AfD with "Keep". I would do it for you, but editing others comments are frowned upon. --Evb-wiki 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the fact that you are helping me even though you are against keeping the article. That shows me that you are upholding the integrity of Wikipedia policy. I do understand your point of view, and I am simply trying to express mine. In my eyes, the company is notable and worthy of an article. Dmcnabb5 16:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Sorry it didn't work out. There's a bit of a built-in prejudice by many editors against articles that are about web-based companies anyway, mainly because most all of the truly notable ones have been well covered, and the overall impression is that the rest are simply seeking publicity through Wikipedia. Heck, even YouTube got speedy-deleted the first time out, or so the legend goes. I've used this line a number of times before (and was even quoted by someone else in an AfD), and it still applies: The best-written article in the world can't make up for a subject that simply isn't notable. Keep on trying. Realkyhick 05:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)