User talk:SRobbins

December 2009
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no conflict of interest, additional resources were going to be added. we will have to wait till page restored for further discussion. Please take to talk page in article Revitopia. thank you SRobbins (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Revitopia
I have deleted this article, as the template you used to question the deletion was not appropriate - and, once removed, the article would be empty. The correct course of action when you wish to question a deletion is to first ask the deleting admin (in this case, ) to reconsider. Provide additional sources that show the subject is notable. If they decline, the next step is filing a case at Deletion Review. There are instructions there on how to do that. The important thing is that you not recreate the article before addressing the concerns that caused it to be deleted. I've let Gogo Dodo know that you have concerns, and you may wish to state those concerns at User talk:Gogo Dodo. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the decision to delete the article because I felt that you did not establish why the site is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia per the relevant guideline. I do not think that the self-declared "only site on the internet that specializes in public standards for Autodesk Revit" is a viable claim to notability since you also state they had just updated it to state that.  However, you may recreate the article if you wish, but what you really need to do is find independent, published works that cover the website.  For example, if anybody has done a review of the website or if the website has received a well-known award.


 * You also appear to have a conflict of interest in the website as you appear heavily involved in the website or established the website. Please see Wikipedia's Business' FAQ on what you should and should not do regarding your website. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * hi Gogo, I posted a reply on your talk page. I also want to assure you that this article is no more an conflict of interest then me owning a computer and writing about them. Thank you for your time. SRobbins (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Re your message: The problem with the article was not that there was not enough time for the article to develop, but that there was no fundamental claim to notability. The peer review process is usually used for high-quality articles.  The Revitopia article was not a well developed article as it was barely a stub article.  When you do decide to recreate the article, I recommend that you recreate it in your user space.  That way you can complete the article, establishing the site's notability, and request editor feedback without the article being speedy deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)