User talk:Ocrrb

Proposed deletion of Oviachelven
Hello, Ocrrb. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Oviachelven, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Oviachelven


A tag has been placed on Oviachelven requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shrikanthv (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I deleted the page, primarily because it was entirely promotional, beyond the level were it would be practical to rewrite it without starting over.

On the now deleted talk page, you said, " I've edited the page. Oviachelven has dedicated his 25 years to indian ad industry. He has worked with worlds best ad companies like O&M,Lowe Lintas and Bates and has served clients like Unilever, Allen Solly, Titan, Britannia, Coca-Cola, McDowell and ITC. This article gives a brief on his service. So there is no need of deleting this article."

A Wikipedia article needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished. (And remember not to copy from a web site, even your own -- first it's a copyright violation, but, even if you own the copyright and are willing to give us permission according to WP:DCM, the tone will not be encyclopedic and the material will not be suitable. -- Thus, there is generally no purpose in giving permission; it is better to rewrite.)

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective clients --that sort of content is considered promotional.

phrases like "he is a true Creative Director and a brand thinker." have no place in an encyclopedia. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. yle of press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive.

in addition, a Wikipedia article also needs to show notability, not merely assert it, with references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Articles written by him, or interviews merely quoting him, do not show it. They must be independent  published articles or news stories that are substantially about him. You had no such sources. And sources saying he worked for notable clients does not show his own notability. That he "has ample online experience with Planetasia, India's first and foremost web solutions house." neither shows his notability, nor serves for any purpose other than his c.v.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, and if you have good sources do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity, and for sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)