User talk:Rockchalk2008

October 2009
Your addition to Daymar College has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ultimate medical academy


A tag has been placed on Ultimate medical academy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that 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 Ultimate medical academy 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 independent 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.  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In re your email to me
Sorry about the delay - I'm in the middle of moving house. =O.o=

No doubt you're aware that the article you created was already deleted as a non-notable corporatioin. From what I had seen of the article, there were no really good secondary sources that could verifiably demonstrate notability - and this was part of my rationale for putting up the speedy deletion tag.

One side effect of putting up anything that is about any sort of company or other institution is that, when said institution is relatively new and otherwise not-so-notable per our criteria, one winds up dangerously straddling the line between a merely non-notable institution and spam, and more to the point, tends to have a bad habit of looking a little like an advertisement as a side effect - which is where I had posted the spam tag to begin with. It's nothing that an author does intentionally (which, admittedly, I have a habit of forgetting once in a while), but when the notability is not present, you don't have much to go on for any page like this other than something like, "Hey, here they are!".

Also, in four years of working on Wikipedia between my two accounts (my other one being User:DennisTheTiger), something I've noticed is not only the new-institution problem as I state above, but moreover, the smaller the institution, the odds of it to reach our notability criteria tend toward being lower - that is, small companies don't tend toward notability. A good case in point for this, I think, is Capezio, a well known maker of dance apparel and shoes, versus a dancewear store who sells their leotards.

One thing to note is that the article you created, as it exists, is not completely wiped out, and we do have a few options for getting it back - note a few things here, though. First, between the time of the email you sent me and the time it got deleted, I simply had not had the time to review what was in place. But, also consider that I am not the only one who goes through and patrols articles, and generally, the admins who go through and clean up the speedy deletion candidates will usually do some research before hitting the delete button. (I say usually because there are some articles that are patently obvious candidates for speedy deletion - going back to the spam thing above, one that comes to mind is one article that somebody put up that was clearly advertising "grow taller pills" or somesuch. This is not only not what we want, we kill that with fire and ban people who do things like that.)

(No, your article was not advertising that academy - this was more along the lines of spam email advertising.)

In any event, two things I'm going to have you check out: one is our Deletion Review section. This is where you go to basically have a deletion overturned - I implore you to read through this before considering putting up for DRV. Moreover, we have an option to userfy your article, in which the admin who undeletes this puts this as a sub-page in your user page, allowing you to polish it up before posting it in the main article namespace.

In your case, I suggest you go the route of userfication - a deletion review, as the article I saw stood, may not stand up to muster, and userfying the article will give you the chance to fix any problems. Once it comes up, you can ask any number of us to help you out - helpme tags are excellent for this.

Finally, in the welcome message at the top of this page (and do forgive me if it at all seemed like I bit you, as this was not my intention), you'll find a lot of good resources on how to get started on Wikipedia. One thing that is of note is a general rule: it tends to be better to work on existing articles to a general extent before going into your first created article. Not that your prior edits weren't good enough - note that even one of my own creations (I Can Has Cheezburger?) was not used until the website pointed out was a little more notable, favoring a redirect to LOLcats instead until something better for notability came along.

-- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 16:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)