User talk:RSully

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. I deleted the 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, 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. Although there were some in-line references, they were were mostly to the organisation's own website, not independent sources.
 * To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, income or expenditure. The text didn't even include the location, it was so busy spamming.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: fulfills [sic] final Dreams  [sic] that provide inspiration, comfort and closure at the end of life... given life to more than 25,000 final Dreams.... never turned down a qualified applicant... is proud to maintain... ensuring its donors and partners that their investment will be used wisely.... And then the inevitable mission statement and more guff.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  07:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not prepared to restore this highly promotional and almost fact-free article, although you could do try again if you wish, preferably as a draft. If you do so, let me know and I'll post you the infobox code and the text of the "Events" section which might help with notbility and has decent references.
 * It seems likely that you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and you must declare it. If 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, if you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:    . If you are being compensated, 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.

Thank you so much for your response. I think I'll try my hand at this and submit a draft. If I do that, may I have the text you mentioned sharing? RSully (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:RSully/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:RSully/sandbox, 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, product, group, service or person 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. &mdash; O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  15:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)