User talk:Rentguard

A tag has been placed on Rentguard Insurance, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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 general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Do not talk about yourself on Wikipedia, see also WP:COI Andante1980 13:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. -- Finngall  talk  15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer Why big (and not only big) Insurance and financial services companies like zurich financial services or aviva group have their articles in wikipedia? Isn't it a blatant advertising? My article about smaller company was deleted for the second time with no explanation, just because apparently, it was a blatant advertising. although it was just a pure information about the company's history and products. What are the rules on deciding what is advertising, and what is not? The companies i've mentioned above (and the companies i found in wikipedia's contents 'insurance companies based in UK' also have their external links to their websites. Could you give me explanation what was the difference between my deleted article and these articles?


 * Replying to various points in no particular order:
 * (Disclaimer: I'm not an administrator, nor do I speak for them. I don't have the power to delete articles myself--indeed, I have no more power or privileges here than you.  I merely tagged the second of the two incarnations of the article for the attention of the admins, and an admin agreed with the assessment of the article and did the deletion.)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory or an advertising medium. Again, please read the guidelines on conflict of interest--creating or modifying articles about one's own business or products is strongly discouraged except for purposes of correcting some facts.
 * Articles should be written from a neutral point of view. Many articles here could use some improvement in this area, but yours read like an advertisement.
 * You did have a point with regard to the Zurich article--I deleted the history section there because it was a direct copy of the chronology section of their web site. (Side notes: This should not be done lightly, and should always be accompanied by an explanation in the edit summary and/or the article's talk page--in this case, I did both. Blanking content without explanation is considered vandalism.  Also, the involvement of someone from Zurich in editing the article is equally questionable.)
 * It's not a question of whether the company is "big", it's whether they're notable. Wikipedia has set guidelines for notability that set the bar for inclusion.  The more specific guidelines for companies can be found here.  The evidence for notability (and indeed, all article content) needs to come from reliable sources that are independent from the company itself.


 * The fact that the article was speedily deleted does not preclude its recreation, but I recommend leaving the matter alone for a time and reading up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I do hope that you will continue to contibute here, but please keep these policies in mind when you do so.  Thanks, and take care. -- Finngall   talk  17:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)