Regarding the article in question, I'd like to understand why it was removed. Would you discuss this with me. As a lay searcher, recently introduced to the world of intellectual property, this was a good, informative way to learn of people, and individuals who make a contribution in this realm. It's not an article or advertisement about a law firm, rather information on the realm of IP and the people behind that realm.
Can that really be considered an ad? I think not! Pls revert with your thoughts. Shash22 ( talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. Maybe if your username wasn't so similar to "Shashank Bhatia", one of the practitioners at Fernandez & Associates LLP, you'd be less likely to have a conflict of interest? GB T/ C 13:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It might be an idea if you had a read of a couple of policies on notability, spam and conflicts of interest. In particular, the fundamental concept is that to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, a company (or anything or anyone) must be notable. For companies, guidelines to what constitutes notability are set out here. GB T/ C 13:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's presumptuous on your part to assume upon my identity. Even hostile. But point taken. However, I've read and looked around, and realized the world of IP has very few NOTABLES, and did seem to think that Fernandez & Associates LLP was among them. Don't you think so? Or is there a conflict there? Thanks Shash22 ( talk) 13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I am being presumptuous and should be assuming good faith then fair enough. The obligation is, however, to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and you have to admit that if you aren't involved in the company which you're looking to promote then it's a pretty staggering coincidence.
- Leaving that aside, two people obviously considered that the article, as it stood, did not establish the notability of the company - the person who flagged it for speedy deletion, and the admin who then deleted it. Assuming that you are involved with the company, to be honest, the best thing to do is leave it alone. If the company really is notable enough, the one day someone else, who doesn't have a conflict of interest, will come along and write about it. Until that day, notability can't be created, so any attempts by people to either promote the company without it having sufficient notability (which constitutes spam) or to promote it without being properly independent (which constitutes a conflict of interest) will almost certainly result in deletion. GB T/ C 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that all promotion is devoid of merit for notability? Or is all notability NOT promotion? I fail to understand how this has anything to do with you, me, or the two people who deleted this article. I'm only saying, that I do feel an entity doing unconventional things most unconventionally does deserve a mention for two purposes--one information on a realm, and two, its' contribution in making a difference and spreading awareness--the possibility of this information becoming or not becoming an advertisement remains very incidental to the notability. I think!
- Notability is a fact - whether something, or someone meets the criteria for inclusion is a factual matter. Where it does, and that notability is supported by reliable sources, then it merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Promotion is a method of presenting something. A properly written article about a company doesn't seek to promote that company, merely relate the facts about that company in a manner which has a neutral point of view. If, however, the company has no notability, then it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, and any attempt to include it, against the rules, is deemed to be an attempt to promote a non-notable company, which is in effect advertising and / or spam.
- If you fail to understand how this has antyhing to do with the four people involved in this article (not that I really am) then maybe you're missing the fundamental point of Wikipedia. It is the very people who edit it - you, me, everyone, who determine (using this case as an example) (1) what goes into the article, (2) what the criteria for notability are, (3) whether the article establishes that required level of notability, (4) if it doesn't, whether it should be promoted for speedy deletion, or put up for a longer, more formal deletion discussion, (5) if the former, whether it should be deleted or not (if something is declined for speedy deletion, it normally then proceeds down the slower deletion route), and (6) if the latter, what the general consensus is about whether or not the article should be kept.
- Read the guidelines on notability generally, and of companies specifically, I've linked to a few messages back. Ignoring your conflict of interest (which I note you haven't denied at any stage), do you believe that the company honestly satisfies those criteria? Can you prove it with reliable sources? If so, look back at the form of the deleted article - why was it deleted. Did it fail to establish the notability you believe the company has? GB T/ C 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the article in question, I'd like to understand why it was removed. Would you discuss this with me. As a lay searcher, recently introduced to the world of intellectual property, this was a good, informative way to learn of people, and individuals who make a contribution in this realm. It's not an article or advertisement about a law firm, rather information on the realm of IP and the people behind that realm.
Can that really be considered an ad? I think not! Pls revert with your thoughts. Shash22 ( talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. Maybe if your username wasn't so similar to "Shashank Bhatia", one of the practitioners at Fernandez & Associates LLP, you'd be less likely to have a conflict of interest? GB T/ C 13:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It might be an idea if you had a read of a couple of policies on notability, spam and conflicts of interest. In particular, the fundamental concept is that to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, a company (or anything or anyone) must be notable. For companies, guidelines to what constitutes notability are set out here. GB T/ C 13:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It's presumptuous on your part to assume upon my identity. Even hostile. But point taken. However, I've read and looked around, and realized the world of IP has very few NOTABLES, and did seem to think that Fernandez & Associates LLP was among them. Don't you think so? Or is there a conflict there? Thanks Shash22 ( talk) 13:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I am being presumptuous and should be assuming good faith then fair enough. The obligation is, however, to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and you have to admit that if you aren't involved in the company which you're looking to promote then it's a pretty staggering coincidence.
- Leaving that aside, two people obviously considered that the article, as it stood, did not establish the notability of the company - the person who flagged it for speedy deletion, and the admin who then deleted it. Assuming that you are involved with the company, to be honest, the best thing to do is leave it alone. If the company really is notable enough, the one day someone else, who doesn't have a conflict of interest, will come along and write about it. Until that day, notability can't be created, so any attempts by people to either promote the company without it having sufficient notability (which constitutes spam) or to promote it without being properly independent (which constitutes a conflict of interest) will almost certainly result in deletion. GB T/ C 13:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that all promotion is devoid of merit for notability? Or is all notability NOT promotion? I fail to understand how this has anything to do with you, me, or the two people who deleted this article. I'm only saying, that I do feel an entity doing unconventional things most unconventionally does deserve a mention for two purposes--one information on a realm, and two, its' contribution in making a difference and spreading awareness--the possibility of this information becoming or not becoming an advertisement remains very incidental to the notability. I think!
- Notability is a fact - whether something, or someone meets the criteria for inclusion is a factual matter. Where it does, and that notability is supported by reliable sources, then it merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Promotion is a method of presenting something. A properly written article about a company doesn't seek to promote that company, merely relate the facts about that company in a manner which has a neutral point of view. If, however, the company has no notability, then it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia, and any attempt to include it, against the rules, is deemed to be an attempt to promote a non-notable company, which is in effect advertising and / or spam.
- If you fail to understand how this has antyhing to do with the four people involved in this article (not that I really am) then maybe you're missing the fundamental point of Wikipedia. It is the very people who edit it - you, me, everyone, who determine (using this case as an example) (1) what goes into the article, (2) what the criteria for notability are, (3) whether the article establishes that required level of notability, (4) if it doesn't, whether it should be promoted for speedy deletion, or put up for a longer, more formal deletion discussion, (5) if the former, whether it should be deleted or not (if something is declined for speedy deletion, it normally then proceeds down the slower deletion route), and (6) if the latter, what the general consensus is about whether or not the article should be kept.
- Read the guidelines on notability generally, and of companies specifically, I've linked to a few messages back. Ignoring your conflict of interest (which I note you haven't denied at any stage), do you believe that the company honestly satisfies those criteria? Can you prove it with reliable sources? If so, look back at the form of the deleted article - why was it deleted. Did it fail to establish the notability you believe the company has? GB T/ C 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)