User talk:Thirdworldnomad

Welcome!
Hello, Thirdworldnomad, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan


A tag has been placed on European Chamber of Commerce Taiwan, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It 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. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~. I deleted your article because
 * the article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. The copied site was marked Copyright © 2011 EUROPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TAIWAN, which does not confirm that it can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial, as we require here. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
 * 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, press releases, 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. You gave no references at all, just a couple of links to your website. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the funding or expenditure.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: is the largest and principal not-for-profit organisation promoting European business interests... represents over 850 members from 400 companies and organisations... proactive engagement with government... The ECCT supports its members... has a successful track record... The ECCT frequently provides opportunities for members to meet with government officials&mdash; and so on, just fact-free spam.
 * there shouldn't be any url link in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. that's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to your sites.
 * I note that you have edited no other articles. If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the chamber, 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.

We often restore deleted text on request, but for legal reasons we don't do so for copyright violations. In any case, there was little factual content in your draft, so better to start from scratch.

Before attempting to write this article again, please check that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this guidance. You must also reply to the COI request above

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the disclosure. If you rewrite, you need to put that disclosure on your user page and a similar connected contributor disclosure on the article talk page. Hiring an external writer would be a bad move anyway. That is paid editing, which is not allowed, and many such writers have no idea what they are doing, often getting themselves blocked.
 * I don't understand how you can say that your text isn't copyright, when it's clearly copied from your website that is marked Copyright © 2011 EUROPEAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TAIWAN. If you want to allow it to be used here, and you have the authority to do so, you must either change your website tag to Text is public domain or similar, or follow this procedure. We can't just take your word for it when it contradicts what the site says. Alternatively, you can write in your own words without copying or closely paraphrasing the website text.
 * Non-internet sources can be used as references, see for example Pallas's leaf warbler, which has several. Your magazine is acceptable as a source of purely factual information, but not for opinions. Also note what I said about references being in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting.
 * The American article isn't great, but it doesn't seem to be a copyright violation and it does have in-line references, so it's clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, unlike yours, so no double standard. In any case other stuff doesn't help you. I don't think that a deletion discussion will succeed, but you are welcome to nominate it for deletion if you really think it's as bad as your version.


 * Basically, you need start from scratch following this procedure. Even if you release your website as genuinely public domain, it would need to be cleaned up and properly referenced, but you certainly can't use it while it claims ownership of the text. We can only use text marked as public domain or licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)