User talk:Lacramioarab

Speedy deletion of Embarcadero Technologies
A tag has been placed on Embarcadero Technologies, 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 article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. -- Menti  fisto  09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since this article has been deleted several times by different editors, it is now a protected title. Please do not attempt to recreate it under a different title. Jimfbleak 10:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is unsourced, full of unverifiable unreferenced claims, and littered with Trade mark and registered synmbols. It's spam. Jimfbleak 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * microsoft has 91 in-line references, and is NPOV Jimfbleak 10:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the number of deletions, I'm not prepared to lift the protection as yet. Recreate it here, and let me know when it's ready. Make sure it is not copyright, meets the notability criteria, is neutral and encyclopaedic in tone, and that everything has verifiable independent sources Jimfbleak 10:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's much better, and I've tidied a bit, but I think it would still be deleted if thrown to the wolves now. Add a bit more non-product stuff - in the infobox it says it's in SF and has a turnover of $60 m, so say that in the text. The list of products still looks a bit spammy  - there's an odd allowing you in it, but a list of products with claims that lack obvious (in-line?) verification and no comparison with competitors looks promotional even without buy this now type wording.

I'd be inclined to inclined to dump the list altogether, and highlight a few key features in text paragraphs - anyone interested can look at the company website for details. Its always a good idea when writing an article for a topic you're to close too to step back and consider what a fair-minded rival might have written. Jimfbleak 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made a few final tweaks, and removed the title from the protected page list, so you can recreate using the move page option. Good luck, Jimfbleak 12:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)