Craftmethodology

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Craftmethodology

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on User:Craftmethodology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Karenjc 10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... there is a growing global interest in collaborative working The institute for Collabroative working is a not for profit organisation and the CRAFT methodolgy was the foundation of British Standards BS 11000 which is the worlds first standard for collaborative working. The standard is now on the development course to become and ISO standard and is gaining attention in many parts fo the world. As such I believe that the craft methodology has both a broad business, historical and academic interest Craftmethodology (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. None of that addresses the reason this was tagged for deletion. A great and notable subject—one that has "broad business, historical and academic interest"—can still be written like a commercial, as this very much was, and whether it's for profit or is a charity is irrelevant. More importantly, this was a blatant copyright violation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - spam account for something called CRAFT

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you will probably not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

• Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
• Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
• Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 12:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Firstly I am not sure how you see this as copyright violation as the copyright owner I have no issue with level of information being publically available. Regarding it being promotional I fail to see how supporting a national standard which is publicly avaiable but provides background to its development is anything other than of mutual intyerest.Craftmethodology (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content bears a free copyright license. If you want to use copyrighted material here you can't just allow us to use it, it has to be released under a compatible free license, forever, and done by a method that proves you are the copyright owner and thus have the authority to give the release. Here, though, it wouldn't matter because we could never use this promotionally written material. You don't seem to be making the distinction between merit of an organization and how it is written about. An article on a worthy topic, can be written using promotional language, and the language you copied and pasted could be a poster child for promotional writing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)