User talk:Jayaim

A tag has been placed on Phonehog, 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. - ArglebargleIV 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. -- Finngall   talk  21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The article has already been deleted, as it still looked like blatant advertising. Even if it weren't, there were no independent references provided as evidence that the company is notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article.  Please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or a repository of random information. -- Finngall   talk  21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * Comparing one article to another around here can be an exercise in madness. Since anyone can create or edit any article, and since not all articles get the attention they deserve, using the existence or quality of article X to justify the existence of article Y doesn't generally carry much weight.
 * That said, I looked at the article you cited. While it could use some improvement, it mostly appears to be written in the neutral point of view that one would expect from an encyclopedia article, and it appears that the information therein is verifiable from multiple references to independent, reliable sources.  These qualities were not present in your article.  Also, if you are connected with the company, then I ask you to please read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.  If you have further questions, I'll be happy to answer them.  Take care. -- Finngall   talk  22:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GulfstreamLogo.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:GulfstreamLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)