User talk:Nicole0384

Speedy deletion of Global Technology Associates Ltd.
A tag has been placed on Global Technology Associates Ltd., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Badgernet   Talk  15:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's ok to talk about a company and its purpose as long as the article isn't an advertisement. However, that company has to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and it might be best to avoid creating the article yourself if that would pose a conflict of interests. WP:FIRST and WP:SPAMMER contain some good tips, Best wishes,  Badgernet    Talk  16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As reviewing administrator, I deleted it--the company may well be worth an article, but see the BFAQ for the sort of purely descriptive and encyclopedic material it must be limited to, and remember it needs 3rd party independent reliable published sources, print or online (but not blogs or press releases). As a guideline, if it reads like the sort of material one would appropriately put on a web page or a booklet about the company, it's wrong for an encyclopedia. The advice you have been given by the other editor above is very much to the point.  DGG (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)