User talk:Nmngrg3a

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Guild of service


A tag has been placed on Draft:Guild of service, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view 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 "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.  DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. 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, 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. Most of your text was completely unsourced, and of the two refs you did give, one was your own website, not an independent third-party source, and the other didn't mention your organisation at all. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
 * To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits. You don't even appear to have a headquarters
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: the various projects of the Guild have benefited lakhs of children, women and differently abled... by providing them suitable assistance to make them responsible and financially independent citizens... "Vision and Mission"... good quality, multi-dimensional education and training to an increasing number, year upon year... Our Presence and Current Programs...&mdash; and so on. You have also bolded text such as one of the oldest social service organizations in India for promotional effect
 * You said the article was about a non profit organisation which isn't relevant; you don't have to be profit making to promote yourself. Indeed, you go on to say the mere purpose of it was to make people aware of the existence of the same, which i would have thought was the definition of promotion. You said The organisation as such needs no publicity, which presumably means that you don't need an article here.
 * the article was a copyright violation of the organisation's website. 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 pages are marked ©2014 Guild of Services. All rights reserved. and are obviously not free to be used and modified for any purpose, including commercial, as we require here. 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.
 * You wrote Our Presence and Current Programs. You have an obvious conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it. Since 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, 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:    . 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, but for legal reasons we do not do so with copyright text. Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that you reply to the COI query above, and please read this guidance

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)