User talk:Fantonel

Speedy deletion of MyStockFund
A tag has been placed on MyStockFund, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of 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 our the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN ‑ X - Man 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. There are a couple of things that I can bring to your attention that may help you understand why the article was deleted. WP:Why was my article deleted? is a good place to start, but I'll try to give you some information here (and supply links where you can go for further information). First of all -- what makes the company notable? A company isn't entitled to an article in Wikipedia just because it exists/existed, it has to be notable -- special, unusual, better than its peers. Although I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, I gather from re-reading the deleted article that you may think that the company did something unusual. Then comes the second point -- who said so? The article I read had no references that demonstrated that an arm's-length third-party expert had said, in a verifiable way, that the company was notable. That's a key element that was lacking. One way I've expressed this to editors in the past is that the only thing that's important is what experts said about the topic, and not what you or I think. (If you're an expert on this topic, there are special rules about that, and you can start by reading the conflict of interest policies.) Essentially, you have to assemble an article that only quotes what other people had to say about the company, without any of your own language -- and you have to make sure that the reader can verify that those quotes are accurate by telling people how and where they can read the original expert opinion. I hope that helps you work out if it's worthwhile to try to remake the article. If you want the deleted material to be put in a "sandbox" page so that you can work on it, I'll be happy to do that -- just leave me a note. And of course if you have any further questions, let me know and I'll try to help you. Accounting4Taste: talk 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)