Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gramlee

Why is this page back again?
I was asked by the creating editor to justify removing external links. My answer is repeated here:


 * I see on inspection that this page was deleted after editor review, and has been recreated. Did you realize this?


 * I deleted some of the advertising language, but "has led marketing initiatives for several technology companies" and especially "he saw an untapped market niche full of people" belongs not in an encyclopedia, but in company advertising.


 * External links: Twitter is generally disallowed because it is an unmoderated social site where anybody can say what they like (and in this specific case have created a page with no encyclopedic value) [14]]. This link, ditto [15]. This link is WP:SPAM [16], and contains little material, none of which couldn't easily be added to the Wikipedia article (a preferred preferred practice to relying on external sources for content). Links that Wiki most wants are from books, reliable magazines and newspapers, independent reviewers.

Piano non troppo (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to remove the advertising tag from this article, and gave this answer:


 * I would like to be supportive, and say "yes". But there is another issue, which is that the topic as a whole was voted on in a review, and editors unanimously voted to delete the article. That discussion is here [14]. Regardless of the (rather harmless) marketing tag I added, you will want to address the issues they raised -- otherwise, there's a good chance this article will just be deleted again. If you are personally related to the business, one thing you certainly should do is explain your relationship on the talk page [15]. Obviously people often have personal associations with articles that they edit -- however when there is controversy, as there was before about conflict of interest, your safest bet is simply to state what your "bias" is, as it were. Piano non troppo (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)