User talk:Lauravonburns

Welcome!
Hello, Lauravonburns, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as NeoVita Eyewear, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of NeoVita Eyewear


A tag has been placed on NeoVita Eyewear, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Responding to your claim at the article's Talk page (I answered there but it will be deleted soon) that the article isn't promotional: The entire article is written in the first person by you, a person who apparently has a conflict of interest, and every paragraph talks about how wonderful the company and its products are. That's promotional.


 * Wikipedia is for academic-style articles written with a neutral perspective summarizing verifiable information from independent reliable sources. The article at Cutler and Gross is written in the third person, supplies a great number of references to which assertions in the first part of the article are ascribed. The rest of it can, quite frankly, can stand quite a few more inline citations, and I see that someone has added a "citation needed" tag to that effect. When the article first appeared, it seems that it was much more promotional that it is now and included many subjective statements that have been removed. But evidently others felt there was adequate, documented objective information in there to be able to remove the fluff and still have an article.


 * In addition, folks who reviewed the Cutler and Gross article early on most likely found that it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, substantial independent coverage. Google has 42 hits for "Neovita Eyewear", all of them promotional or directory listings.


 * Finally, and importantly: Comparing articles can have a downside, because sometimes the article you've chosen to compare actually should also be deleted for the same reason. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Promotion and copyright
You copied the company site into your article. That's a not good idea for two reasons. Company sites are there for one purpose - promoting the company. Wikipedia does not allow promotion. The other problem is that the company site is copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA for reuse by anyone anywhere. The company site isn't, and therefore can't be used here no matter how neutral it may be. On the now deleted talk page, you gave the impression that you had written the text for use here. I just dropped "As Opticians, we have spent a working" into Google, and there was the company site. If you think of trying again, please read WP:CORP first, about company notability, and WP:RS about the reliable independent sources you need in order to prove it. Wikipedia isn't like Facebook, where you can just post almost anything. Please read WP:COI as well, as I feel you are connected to the company in some way. That one is about conflict of interest - writing about subjects you are close to. (The conflict bit is because Wikipedia editors are supposed to put Wikipedia and neutrality before their outside interests. As if...) Peridon (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)