User talk:Jmerril

A tag has been placed on Astute technology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done 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. If you can indicate why Astute technology is really not blatant advertising, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Astute technology. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. You might also want to read the guidelines on spam. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert why the article is not blatant advertising, please affix the template  to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Astute Technology
I've nominated the article Astute Technology for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Astute Technology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Astute Technology. Don't forget to add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Astute Technology during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusion
Obviously other companies have listings in Wiki- many with fewer details/information. This type of decision making appears careless and arbitrary and erodes my confidence in the Wiki process. Examination of other corporate (software company) entries reveals similar information- and frequently with less detail. This is not advertising but remove it if you insist. Why bother having company references at all? The listings are far too spotty to be valuable and this type of decision making insures that it remains this way. Wikis are a process. A company exists. There is an entry. Others are free to comment/change it. Removing the entry from the Wiki will not remove the fact that the organization exists - it only weakens the Wiki and demonstrates a process of inclusion/exclusion which is flawed at best. It is hard to put information about organizations on a public forum, to censor this information makes it harder. Cutting and pasting criteria without objectively evaluating the current entries is a sorry excuse for policy. Stating this reality will likely call further attention to this entry and expedite its removal. So be it.