User talk:Natep2010

PlanPrescriber.com
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of PlanPrescriber.com, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www2.caremark.com/micro/planprescriber/how.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PlanPrescriber.com
A tag has been placed on PlanPrescriber.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please visit the article for details.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Schuhpuppe (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PlanPrescriber page
Hi Excirial,

PlanPrescriber is referanced in two articles on Wikipedia, but there is no link, reference or description of the comapny on Wikipedia.

eHealth, Inc. - the company that work for - acquired PlanPrescriber in May, and we're planning to take their CEO on a road trip to meet with the media and press. Many of the reporters we work with check Wikipedia for information about a company, so I would like to have a description available here if possible.

You noted that the pharmacy - CVS - has a description of PlanPrescriber on its web site, and that is because they're one of our partners and they use the PlanPrescriber platform to help senior citizens enroll in medicare plans. Their page is actually a copy of OUR page which is on our web site at this URL [About Us].

Please let me know what I need to do so that you'll allow us to recreate our PlanPrescriber page in Wikipedia.

Thank you, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natep2010 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The page was removed for two reasons under the Criteria for Speedy Deletion) policy - Criteria WP:G11 (Blatant Advertisement) and Criteria WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement). A secondary concern was A7] (No indication of notability, and the obvious Conflict of interest you have with the subject. Don't worry, ill explain there in a moment. However, since there are loads of things i will have to explain, i would advice a getting yourself nice cup of coffee for the long read.


 * G12
 * For legal reasons wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material, even if you are the copyright holder. External websites or publications may be used as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. There are multiple reasons for this restriction. First and foremost content on wikipedia can be reprinted, adapted, shared or partially removed on a whim. Due to this Wikipedia can only accept content that is released under a CC-BY-SA or lighter license. This release has to be done explicitly, as we cannot verify if a user adding content is the same user that owns the content. You should also keep in mind that, even if allowed though copyright, directly copying content is rarely a good idea due to formatting and writing style.


 * In simple terms: You can not copy the content from another website that doesn't freely license the content, even if you are the subject or the writer of that article.


 * G11 and A7
 * The first one, G11, rules that an article has to be witting from a neutral stance, as if someone is just plain describing the business. When writing an article, don't just highlight the good things of the business, and try to avoid any "Peacock" words and sentences such as "An excellent player in the ... market" and "Of Exceptional quality". Those lines are most times indications that an article is in the area of advertising, which often causes deletion. Full details can be found at WP:NPOV.


 * The second one, Notability, rules that to be on Wikipedia, the articles subject needs to have some kind of importance which warrants an encyclopedia article. For example an article about Google is notable because Google is the worlds biggest search engine. An article of the butcher on the corner here is an example of an article of would not be notable. For companies, notability is most times established trough citings publishings in secondary sources. Full guidelines on that can be found at WP:CORP.


 * In simple terms: Article's may not be advertisements, and must detail a subject that is important enough for encyclopedic inclusion.


 * CoI
 * We usually ask editors not to write or edit articles about subjects they are personally related to, such as their own company. Wikipedia strives to remain neutral in all of our articles, so that they may be easily used by our worldwide base of readers. When editing with a conflict of interest such as I just described, it can be very difficult not to introduce some sort of bias into the article, even if you don't intend to. Over the course of several years, we've noticed that articles about companies or products written by employees or owners of those companies tend to be heavily biased, some to the point they need to be deleted as outright advertising. So while it's not against our policies to write about your own company, we'd really really prefer you didn't.


 * In simple terms: It is difficult to write an objective article about an subject you are closely related to, so these subjects should be avoided or approached with extreme care.


 * What to do now?
 * In general the best course of action is waiting till someone else starts an article about you. If your company is truly notable, someone will eventually start an article about it. I strongly advice against writing it yourself since being objective about your company is hard - in fact, this isn't exactly the first removal of an article regarding PlanPrescriber. There have been two creations of similar article's which were equally removed.


 * If you insist on writing the article yourself, ask whether it is worth the time. Wikipedia is not a vessel for advertisement or promotion, and promotional article's are removed on sight, same with companies that don't pass the notability threshold (Described in the A7 section). Equally i point out that having an article about your company can be negative as well - if your company received negative news coverage this may be included in the article all the same. Besides this, i would advice you to read our FAQ for businesses


 * If you still wish to continue, i advice the following: Model your article after a good article such as Pearson's Candy Company and keep the Words To Watch page open at all times to prevent advertising or other promotional language from slipping in. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 00:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)