User talk:Hushspinners

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Hushspinners/Buissy.com


A tag has been placed on User:Hushspinners/Buissy.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button 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. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mean as custard (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Promotional article and advice in general
I thought I'd explain why the article was considered promotional. First off, phrases such as "richness of this community" and "the best" are considered to be inappropriate. Phrasing must be neutral! This is something you'd see on a press release or on the website itself and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. That sort of brings me to another thing: the article goes into way more detail than it really should. When talking about what the site does, you need to be brief rather than go into extreme depth and extol the virtues of each process and feature.

Now as far as the sources go, those don't help towards notability for the most part. The Crunch Base article is actually a routine business listing. Business listings aren't usable as a source to give notability regardless of the listing's location. To put it a little humorously, unless it's tattooed on Gary Busey's forehead or drilled into his teeth (he's got the space, after all), the location of a source can't give notability. Press releases are considered to be WP:PRIMARY sources and can't be used to show notability. Also, links to facebook and other social media sites are almost always discouraged as far as articles go. Unless the person/entity in question is extremely visible on these sites to the extent where newspapers and the like comment upon it, they shouldn't be added. Now as far as the sources on the very bottom of the page go, those seem to just be about the techno world at large rather than your specific site. Even if the subject matter (computers and programming) is notable, that notability is not extended to your company. Listing sources that don't focus on the company is often seen as misleading and work against the company rather than for it as far as notability goes. You also don't really need to list each and every service and every language supported. Just the highlights are necessary. It's better to give a general overview of the services.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. I've still deleted the page and I'd recommend that if you want to re-create it that you look for someone from WikiProject Companies to help you to avoid a COI. Be aware that this doesn't guarantee that your company will pass notability guidelines. Sometimes companies can be around for a long time, have a large customer base, and be successful, yet never pass WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)