User talk:Marchesinivan

Speedy deletion nomination of Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection


A tag has been placed on Research Institute for Geo-Hydrological Protection, 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply
The different language wikipedias operate their own rules and standards and the fact that an article is accepted in one language is not relevant. You will also note that you don't have to be selling anything to be promotional. If I say "Obama" is the best US president ever", there is no financial implication, but most people would see it as non-neutral and promotional. Some issues
 * it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Most of the references were to your own website and much of the text was unreferenced.
 * Not a reason for deletion, but your references would be clearer formatted thus: instead of a bare url
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * You had a long list of spamlinks to journals who publish you. There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections, and especially when the links seem both unnecessary and spammy
 * The lead is supposed to summarise the article, but it's just a celebration of your mission and goals
 * The text is all about your services, no boring facts such as how you are funded, or evaluation or criticism from third-party sources
 * A few examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include:  The Institute is a network of laboratories and expertise in Italy... This facilitates the collaboration with local authorities interested in the activities and the products & services offered by the Institute... The unit is equipped with state-of the-art instruments


 * You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. Thank you for declaring your interest. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

Your institution is clearly notable, but you need to bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a free web outlet for your institute. I'll shortly restore the deleted text here Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I made these edits to start you off. Note that you should only link to Wikipedia articles once, not every time they occur Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)