User talk:Eggheaddesign

Uponor
A tag has been placed on Uponor, 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 or service and which 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. Rjgodoy 06:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello! For a definition of "Blatant advertising" see WP:CSD. In short, the speedy deletion procedure is as follow:  An editor tags the article (or image, etc.) arguing one "speedy delete criterium".  An editor review the article and deletes it if the criterium is met I am not an admin, so I didn't delete the article (I only tagged it). The deletion was performed by User:^demon, so you should ask him for undeletion or about the rationale he/she had.

Articles in wikipedia must be about notable subjects. A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other.

I don't remember the article, but usually I consider as "advertisement" those articles that have few paragraphs and only suggest people to go to the company web site, without asserting the notability of the company. I'm not sure if this was the criterium I took in this case.

I encourage you to submit an article about Uponor, if you can provide the required sources for asserting notability. If you need any other clarification, just ask me.

Rjgodoy 08:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some question I did not answered yet Rjgodoy 08:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * by itself does not avoid deletion. You should have provided your rationale for opposing deletion.
 * This is not a US vs UK matter.
 * This was not because of the link itself. The "advertisement" was the whole article (otherwise, the link, and only the link should have been deleted).

Many thanks for your response.

However, I still do not understand. The article you flagged for deletion had been in existence on this site for a consdierable period of time, and been edited a few times. Presumably, it had cleared editorial review a number of times.

So, I come along, do nothing more than add a reference to Uponor UK, and you decide that the whole article is blatant advertsing where several other editors did not appear to do so.

Please explain so I understand why you decided that they were wrong.

Many thanks

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggheaddesign (talk • contribs)

Blatant advertisement are "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". This MAY be the case, and possibly the other contributions were only minor formatting edits, which do not necessary endorse the notabiliy of the subject. However, I will ask User:^demon since I cannot recall exactly why I tagged it. Rjgodoy 14:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I read back over the article, and it appears to me that it was tagged correctly. The article reads like an advertisement, so I believe it was justifiably deleted. ^ demon [omg plz] 18:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)