ContentEditor949
Welcome!
|
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dslrf.org/endingbc/content.asp?L2=1&L3=1&SID=278.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on The Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
- It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) 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. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
- It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Article deleted
editI've deleted the article for several reasons. First off, the article had copyright violations from an existing website. I notice that a ticket had been submitted to ORTS, but the problem with that is that the content you copied would still be problematic. It's incredibly promotional in tone, which is something that is perfectly acceptable on someone's own website but not on Wikipedia. That's sort of the catch about submitting a ticket and giving up content as fair use: even if you were to give Wikipedia complete and total ownership of whatever was created, we still cannot use it and it would still have to be re-written to fit our WP:NPOV guidelines.
As far as promotional tones go, phrases such as "innovative Health of Women Study [HOW] Study" and "Dr. Love brought with her a passion to eradicate breast cancer in her lifetime." are completely inappropriate. The article is studded with various WP:PEACOCK phrases and words, which makes me wonder... are you a paid editor? By that I mean that someone is paying you in some aspect to put this content up or you are gaining from it in some form or fashion. This could be something along the lines of you being a marketing company the place has hired or an intern that is creating this on the request of the organization. Even if you aren't getting paid, the organization asking you to create the page still poses a WP:COI issue because you are still affiliated with them. This doesn't mean that you can't edit, but you have to be very, very transparent about your association with the company. If someone thinks that you are a paid or COI editor and you aren't disclosing it (or are deliberately not saying it because you are afraid of getting blocked), it can lead to you getting blocked. That's why it is so incredibly important for you to be very open about any COI. I'll be honest in that I think that you were asked to create the content by the foundation. Again, this doesn't mean that you can't edit but I really, really want to stress how desperately important it is for you to review our COI policy and try to follow every single guideline to a T.
There was also a problem with sourcing. The page lacked coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We absolutely must have them to show how something is notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)