User talk:Wisdomtwitter

SweetLeaf Stevia Sweetener


A tag has been placed on SweetLeaf Stevia Sweetener, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article 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 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 SweetLeaf Stevia Sweetener 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 independent 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. Mean as custard (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SweetLeaf Stevia Sweetener
A tag has been placed on SweetLeaf Stevia Sweetener requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you.  Acroterion  (talk)  20:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The deleted content was clearly promotional in nature. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a means of promotion.  I am aware of the product (in fact, my wife brought some home last week), but we already have an article on Stevia, and any content on a particular product should be appropriate to an encyclopedia, and should meet Wikipedia's general notability guideliens.   Acroterion  (talk)  20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish, I will restore the content to the original sandbox; I believe it could be edited to be non-promotional in character.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to add that it would be better if the article had been written about the company rather than the products. You actually had some assertions of notability about the company in the article that was deleted. Had you removed the promotional content and re-named the article so the company is the subject, the article would have probably survived. Try again! ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)