User talk:Ldeocares

Young Brothers Trio
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Young Brothers Trio, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Young Brothers Trio fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Article does not assert notability To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Young Brothers Trio, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Young Brothers Trio itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GWATFL


A tag has been placed on GWATFL requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. noq (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of GWATFL
Hello Ldeocares,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged GWATFL for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GWATFL&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ 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.

SamHolt6 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message.

Please add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. If you post an article it will be assessed as it stands. If you don't want that to happen, you should write it as a draft.

Not a reason for deletion, but your article title is an acronym, whereas the article starts with the full name. Choose one as the article title and lead to the article, and redirect from the other form.

I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Your only references were to your own website and a site that didn't mention you. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * There are no facts to show notability; you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, membership, funding or expenditure, not just telling us what you claim to do.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: focused on advocacy and professional development... innovative programs, emerging trends and best practices... where vendors can show their products and services... a spokesperson for the language profession to increase the visibility of the importance of learning languages and cultures to the general public... to elevate the status and the public profile&mdash; basically a recruiting leaflet
 * the article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. The copied site had no such disclaimer. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied site allows free use. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
 * The same applies to the logo. The copied site gives no indication that it is public domain for anyone to use. Normally logos are copyrighted to their organisations and can only be used here with a prescribed fair use rationale.
 * I uploaded the new logo myself, since I made it.&mdash; assuming that you are not claiming the organisation is infringing your copyright, this suggest that you have an obvious conflict of interest, which you must declare.
 * If you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly. Regardless, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

We often restore deleted text on request, but for legal reasons we don't do so for copyright violations. In any case, there was little factual content in your draft, so better to start from scratch.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance. You must also reply to the COI request above

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)