Cdbrandt
Speedy deletion nomination of Erickson Retirement Communities
edit
A tag has been placed on Erickson Retirement Communities requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. Cindamuse (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
hi there - please let me know if i have fixed it!! thanks. CB (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dang. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get back to you sooner. Real life took over. Honestly, I'm more than willing to help out if you have any questions. Don't hesitate to ask. Best wishes, Cindamuse (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Audacious Inquiry
editno worries - thank you very much for offering to help! I'll try again with the Erickson article - I thought the revisions were OK, but I guess not. Could you kindly take a look at the above post draft above for Audacious Inquiry? Do you have any suggestions? thanks again. CB (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- It can oftentimes be difficult for a principal or managing partner of a company or organization to write a neutral article on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, at this time, Audacious Inquiry simply lacks the necessary notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. You can find further information here. Incidental or local coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. When we evaluate articles, we consider whether it (in this case, Audacious Inquiry), has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, or the specific industry in which it is involved. The Audacious Inquiry article does not support this summation. At this time, my recommendation, based on the conflict of interest, would be to hold off on writing an article about your organization. When it becomes truly notable, more than likely, another editor lacking a conflict of interest will want to create an appropriate article. You can find further information here. Additionally, I would caution against re-creation of this article or the Erickson Retirement Communities article. Repeated creation of inappropriate articles is considered disruptive and may result in a block of your account by another editor. Nobody wants that. Wish I had better news. Cindamuse (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Cindamuse, thank you very much for your time and for taking a look!