User talk:Nealehs

Spam in Schultz Jeans
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Schultz Jeans, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Schultz Jeans is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Schultz Jeans, 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have put this article onto a page: User:Nealehs/Jeans. Please do not leave it there indefinitely; it will probably be deleted by someone if you do not use it to make an acceptable articles within a week or so.

What it needs is some published reference to the notability of the product. I don't think you can use that picture by itself--it would be questionable giving our rule against the use  of copyrighted content except in very special circumstances. Put simply, WP cannot be used to spread initial information about a new product, however interesting and worthy. Once the product has attracted significant attention in published sources, then an article can be justified. I recognize the difficulty in doing this for a product marketed only on the net, since blogs and similar sources are not considered reliable--as you realise, anyone can post anything on such sites. The article mentions that several gay magazines have discussed them. If you can find references, this will be the sort of support necessary. Ideally, they should be print publications, but not necessarily so. But they must be cited formally, with title of the article and date and website if relevant and page number if print. You can refer to one being on the cover, but isolated cover placement alone is not sufficient. These aren't my private rules, but simply my understanding of the practice here. Best wishes for it. DGG (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)