Note: I intend to add some commentary to these at some point, to demonstrate how they were valuable learning experiences.
Q: Hi Eusebeus, I am curious about your comment "The extensive publications record is a no-go since that is the company's field of business." Can you ellucidate? This is the first time I have heard of this constraint. Can you point me to any policies or guidelines so I can educate myself? My understanding to date has been that notability within a field, as long as non-trivial references from reliable sources can be provided, is sufficient. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.Dgray xplane 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
A: None yet.
Q: May I ask what "rmv pov" means?
A: POV stands for Point of View. All articles on Wikipedia should be written in Neutral Point of View (NPOV). See the policy at WP:NPOV. I specifically removed wording that read, "many of the world's leading companies." That language was a borderline POV statement, but, more importantly, it also read more like an advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is appropriate to list what companies may enlist Xplane's services, but not to brag that those companies are "leading companies." You should attemt to err on the side of objectivitiy. Hope this helps. --Strothra 00:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Q: Original request for rationale: Hi Proto, Can you explain your rationale for deleting the XPLANE entry? Every commenter who had demonstrable experience in or knowledge of the field of information design voted to keep the entry. My understanding is that when there is not a clear consensus the article should be retained.
Thanks in advance for your reply. Dgray xplane 15:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
A: Hi Dgray_xplane. The article was deleted as the multiple votes to keep were from people who had not contributed to Wikipedia before (which is always very suspicious); if you believe the deletion was incorrect, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Regards, Proto::type 15:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Q: [Request to review deletion review]
A: I had a look over the deletion review, but it does look as though the closing admin acted properly. Most of the "keep" votes were accounts which appeared to have been created specifically to comment on the deletion. The admin closing the discussion can and should discount such votes. Also, do note that blogs, as they undergo no editorial review, are not considered reliable sources.
It does look like the company might be notable, but generally writing on oneself or one's own company is frowned upon. If you can point me to some sources, and the company is indeed notable, I'll assist you in writing the article in a neutral tone. At that time, the closing admin can be contacted regarding recreation, as I doubt if the decision will be overturned. Seraphimblade 16:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- To add to previous-you may also wish to request that the previous text of the article be "userfied", that is, added to a subpage of your user page. There's no obligation on anyone's part to do this, but if you're intending to continue work on the article to address concerns that led to deletion, the request is often granted. Seraphimblade 16:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)