Kmiklas

AfD nomination of OVerus

I have nominated OVerus, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OVerus. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. asenine ^t/_c 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of OVerus

A tag has been placed on OVerus, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which 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 our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bfigura ^(talk) 02:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article OVerus, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The OVerus Organization

A tag has been placed on The OVerus Organization requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of OVerus

A tag has been placed on OVerus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. DarkAudit (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as OVerus, you will be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Reply: Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions. In closing this discussion, please clarify a few points:

1. For the record, the trademark attorney was consulted based on this comment by Prosfilaes, "for a trademark that hasn't been formally registered." Registration is in progress and we sought to provide specific information in the article.
2. Why was the article deleted so fast when according to Wikipedia policy articles receive a minimum of five days, and editing was clearly in progress?
3. Am I correct in understanding that the two referenced sites did not meet notability guidelines per WP:RS
4. Most importantly, what needs to be accomplished before OVerus can be included in Wikipedia? Prosfilaes stated, "you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this." Is that the bottom line? Media attention?
5. Is there a Wikipedia forum to have articles evaluated before they are posted?
6. Where can I obtain copies of my articles? I posted two, one for "OVerus" and another for "The OVerus Organization."
7. Everyone's comments were very helpful. I've actually heard a similar message from newspapers that I've contacted. They've told me that "there's not a story yet." This effort has given me a very clear direction. Thank you for your patience this was my first try at an article.

Kmiklas (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copied your comments from the AfD discussion to here, as it's probably a better place now that the article no longer exists. To address your questions/statements:

• 1 - Registration wouldn't really have helped your case here. The main guideline that would have lead to deletion was notability.
• 2 - It was deleted under the speedy deletion policy. Basically, articles that fail to meet a set of criteria (in your case, not asserting notability was the justification used I think), it can be deleted at any time. (Even during an AfD. Those typically last 5 days, but only have to be as long as it takes for consensus to be established).
• 3 - Most definitely. Reliable sources generally need to be scholarly sources or reputable news coverage.
• 4 - Not the bottom line, but non-trival media converage from multiple mainstream news sources (ie, not just a mention in an article) would generally suffice to establish notability. In order to meet our policy that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, the article would also need to be written from an encyclopedic, non-advertising standpoint.
• 5 - You could create a draft of an article in your user-space (like this: User:Kmiklas/DraftofRandomThingie), and ask for feedback. One way to do that would be to go to the Drawing Board, where you can run ideas past people.
• 6 - You can ask an administrator to recreate them in your user space. Basically, follow the instructions here and email someone in this list. (Note that they aren't require to provide copies, so a polite touch helps). But I don't think you'll have a problem with that.

Hope this helps. PS, if I'm not answering your questions above, let me know. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline to restore article to userspace, with explanation

Normally, this is something I would be glad to do. However, in this case, your conflict of interest is so strong, and your pattern of refusing to acknowledge our standards and practices here is so clear, that I must respectfully decline. You have no business writing or attempting to recreate this article in any form. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I agree with Orange Mike here. I probably didn't make this point strongly enough, but given your apparent conflict of interest in this matter, you really shouldn't be the person to write an article on the company (even if it was proven to be notable). If you're interested in editing on other topics though, I'd be happy to help you out in any way I can. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not "refuse to acknowledge [your] standards and practices," I am a wikinoob, and was simply learning them. This was my first article.

I now realize that the best way for me to get on Wikipedia is to leverage OVerus in the market, and change the way that people shop. That will definitely earn me some articles in some good media sources. Then hopefully someone in the Wikipedia community will take the ball and publish OVerus. Kmiklas (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is how it is supposed to work. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I've really got to commend you for taking everything in stride, most people wouldn't have handled the situation nearly as well. We can always use good editors, so hopefully there's something here you'd be interested in working on. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)