User talk:Wikipeter55

A tag has been placed on Peter Glickman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which 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 the page 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 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. Ryanjunk 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to query
Regarding your question on the Peter Glickman article: First, the final decision on speedy deletion falls to the administrator doing the deleting, in this case User:Anthony.bradbury. I don't exactly remember the contents of the page in question; I typically review lots of content quickly each day in looking for vandalism, etc. If I tagged this article to be deleted as advertising, typically this would mean it is written in a non-encyclopedic style (usually falling afoul of Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point-of-View; that it does not contain any reliable, third-party sources for information in the article; or that it the subject of the article is generally non-notable. In this case, we also run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiography. If some third party were to write an article on this topic, including reliable sources such as the New York Times which include the article's topic as a subject, and were to do so in a NPOV fashion, I would assume such an article would be much less likely to be deleted. However in this case, I don't know what more information there is to be had which is not already included in the Master Cleanse article itself. At any rate, you may raise this article for future discussion at Deletion Review if you feel this was an out-of-policy deletion. Please feel free to contact me with further questions, though again I reiterate that I am not an Administrator, and an admin (specifically the admin who deleted this article) may be more fluent with relevant policies than I am; but I will give it my best answer. Please do place such commentary on my User_talk page, your previous comment was directly on my User page, which is not the custom at Wikipedia and I was not automatically alerted to your message. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. Ryanjunk 17:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)