User talk:Rwsdower

Insound
Hello, Rwsdower, and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Insound, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

insound article
i noticed you deemed my recently created article (titled "Insound") to be written to promote a company. i created the article because i noticed that a band's wikipedia article attempted to link to Insound's but the article did not exist. i searched wikipedia for "Insound" and found this to be the case on multiple band articles. having had experience ordering from insound and reading about it online, and being a fan of wikipedia, i felt i could make a good attempt at writing the first incarnation of its article. after receiving your message, i re-read wikipedia's criteria for notability for companies and corporations. while these criteria seem a bit odd, i did manage to find two or three places in the print media where Insound was the subject of the article. it seems strange that a company/web site can be wildly popular in internet culture, including continuous mentions on many respected and praised blogs and web-based news organizations (for example pitchforkmedia, stereogum and tiny mixtapes) and not be considered notable. this is especially strange considering wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and that the audience which reads this sort of blog is likely a sizable subset of wikipedia's audience. regardless, i would still argue that Insound is notable.

i am slightly offended that my article was marked for speedy deletion which eliminates even the chance for discussion on this topic. i wrote it with the intention of sounding unbiased, and i would have been happy to hear advice as to how i could fix it if it did not sound neutral. Rwsdower 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat convinced. I restored the article.  It should definitely be checked for proper encyclopedic tone though.  I'll start a discussion on the article's talk page - hopefully something can be agreed to.  I'm sorry offense was taken - it was not intended.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * thanks, much appreciated. hopefully suggestions and edits from others can mend its faultsRwsdower 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)