User talk:Ingenieuse

thank you Ingenieuse (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)as recommended, I completely re-wrote the article in my sandbox: it's been sitting there for 3 weeks now - what do I do now? Ingenieuse (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you'd like the draft to be reviewed, place the code  at the top of the page; this will list the page for review at Articles for creation. At a glance, I don't think it would pass in it's current state - I see nothing in the references beyond press releases, directory entries and passing mentions (it looks as though the page has been heavily refbombed in an attempt to assert notability); plus there's still a distinct whiff of an advert about it ("4 Connecticut visionaries", "one of the pioneers", "Scan-Optics' breakthroughs", "Scan-Optics drove many of the technology advances", just for example). However, if you still want to move to the next step of the creation process,   is the way forward. Yunshui  雲 &zwj; 水  12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you  yes, first it was too much advert, when I took it out, it was not notable enough: Scan-Optics is the company that made OCR from a gadget to a useful tool, but how can one write that without it sounding like praise?Ingenieuse
 * Find independent, reliable sources that talk about Scan-Optics, and then record the information in a neutral form. The key to writing good articles on WIkipedia is to only use information from such sources; not press releases, not a company's own website, not passing mentions - find someone unaffiliated with the company who has discussed it in some detail and published their work in an editorially-oversighted form (such as a book or magazine article, rather than a blog). Use what they've said to extract information - not opinions - about the subject, and build the foundation of an page. Repeat with other sources until you have your completed article.
 * It may be that such sources don't yet exist - if that's the case, then Scan-Optics doesn't currently meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and the article won't stay up no matter how neutral your writing. Personally, if I haven't thrown up at least three independent paragraphs on a subject after trying Google, Google Books and Google News, I generally give up on the topic and go off to work on something else. If the coverage isn't there, no amount of re-editing will make it a suitable article. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried to model this page like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Mountain_Incorporated - what is the prohibited part?


 * You wrote one big advertisement, and tried to make it an article. Please read WP:CORP WP:N WP:NPOV and WP:PSCOI. gwickwire  talk editing 21:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides, the article is closely paraphrased from the company's History page, close enough to be considered a copyright violation. Huon (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in writing an article about a company which can be deemed to be notable and that it does not sound like a promotion or an advertisement. Also no copyright should be violated and neutrality should be maintained. Please adhere to the guidelines during your future Wikipedia edits. Thank you. -- Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Scan-Optics
Hello Ingenieuse,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Scan-Optics for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Deb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Speedy deletion nomination of Scan-Optics
Hello Ingenieuse,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Scan-Optics for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Scan-Optics, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. YuMaNuMa Contrib 17:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article difficulty
The article you are trying to create has to do a few things: If the article does all that, then it should be ok - unless you have a conflict of interest with the subject. In that case, you may still be able to write the article, but it is strongly discouraged. Either way, be sure you understand the conflict of interest guidelines.
 * It has to establish the subject's notability in a Wikipedia sense. In this case it means it has to pass WP:BIO.
 * It can't be an advertisement.
 * It can't be a copyright violation
 * It must be verifiable - usually that means using citations from reliable sources

Be sure and click on each of the links above and understand what Wikipedia means in each context.

It's probably a good idea to start the article in your sandbox and get it in shape there before moving it to the article-space. That way it will be much less likely to be speedily deleted. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)