User talk:User32913

Speedy deletion nomination of LP Analyst


A tag has been placed on LP Analyst, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. smileguy91talk 21:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LP Analyst
Hello User32913,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged LP Analyst for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks,  Dewritech (talk)  12:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Userfied
I moved the article to User:User32913/LP Analyst. It is not ready for publication in main article space, because notability per WP:CORP is not evident. The coverage needs to be better. Not trivial mentions or speculative editorial pieces, like what appears there now. Take your time to flesh it out some more and then move it back to main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)