User talk:IndstrlAtmtn

Welcome!

Hello, IndstrlAtmtn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like ICONICS, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of ICONICS

A tag has been placed on ICONICS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business 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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of ICONICS

I have nominated ICONICS, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICONICS. 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. 9Nak (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICONICS, GENESIS32

Dear Sir,

You claim to be the author of the web-site text used to create these two articles. I believe you, but this leaves us with several other issues regarding the inclusion of these articles in Wikipedia:

Even if you are the author, in publishing the text under the company's web site you have, in all likelihood, assigned your copyright to the company, making it, not you, the legal owner of the text.
Even if the company releases the text for publishing or you otherwise have still retained the rights, or are an officer of the company yourself, the text still has to be formally released to the Wikimedia Foundation under the terms of GFDL if we are to use it on Wikipedia. There is a process for doing that, but the next points will prove this effort to be a waste of time.
You claim the articles are "informational". That may be the case, but that is not sufficient for inclusion. The articles also have to be encyclopedic, which they clearly are not. In their current form, the articles do not contain any mention of competing products or criticism of it. As it reads now, the GENESIS32 article is no more than a list of product features, and as such is deemed to be purely promotional.
Even if the copyright and neutrality issues are resolved, we still face the question of notability. Articles about companies and products have to meet a notability test described here and here. Citing references in Automation World and Control Engineering is a good start, but may not be enough. We both know such trade publications will publish a column about almost any product or company once that company buys a full-page ad.
You declare yourself to have a "disclosed affiliation to company." I appreciate your honesty on this matter, but be aware that this puts you in a conflict of interest position, as you cannot be expected to write an article about your company with a neutral point of view. The fact that so far your whole purpose of editing on Wikipedia is to publish articles about your company and its products goes against any encyclopedic standards.

I am willing to leave the ICONICS article in place for a few more days, provided you rewrite it such that it no longer draws on text from the company's web site, and establishes notability based on the policies I referenced above. The GENESIS32 article has to go; I suggest you add a section in the ICONICS article about its products. If you feel this decision to be unjust, you can bring the matter to Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Regards, Owen× ☎ 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with GENESIS32. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with BizViz. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GENESIS32

Please don't play games with us. I have tried to reason with you, but if you keep re-creating deleted material, you will be blocked from editing here. Owen× ☎ 17:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ICONICS

Further removal of perceived "peacock" language for better encylopedic citing. References are not from paid sources as noted in discussion.