|
Hi,
I'd like to request you undelete this page, as I was in the process of updating the article to include sources to justify its relevance as it was deleted. As a significant new company that has existed for over 18 months and has just launched to the public via a well-covered press conference, I feel it's inclusion on Wikipedia is thoroughly justified and I will make any amendments to the page that are required to prove this.
Many thanks,
Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy west1 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you removed the deletion tag. I had to delete it after that. It looked exactly like an advertisement for a company written by an employee with a conflict of interest and with no reliable sources indicating how the company met the notability criteria. And your message above didn't shed any light on any of those four problems. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes the page may have been created by an employee I don't know, but like I say I was in the process of bringing the article up to compliance with the notability criteria when it was deleted. If after I have completed my amendments you still feel it doesn't meet these criteria, feel free to delete it. Surely I should be allowed the opportunity to bring the article up to code?
- Are you asking why we have speedy deletion criteria? They allow us to quickly remove articles about subjects that don't meet the notability criteria. How does this company meet them? That it has existed for more than a year and has held a press conference are not on the list of notability criteria. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."
This is your primary criterion for notability. Blyk has had much coverage from secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, including major radio (BBC) and television (channel 4) coverage in the UK. It was sources such as these that I was adding to the article when it was deleted. A little research would show you that if you search for 'Blyk' on Google, you will receive almost 1,000,000 results, I am not saying that all of these are reliable, but many are. I really think that if you allowed a little more time for the article to be properly completed you would see that it meets your notability requirements.
- There we go... that is the information I need. I did find the coverage you mention, and will undelete for now so you can finish the article. If you find yourself in a similar situation, read the tag before removing it- if you'd added a {hangon} tag to request more time, you would have gotten the time you needed. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I apologise for deleting the tag, in future I will be more cautious. I'll now get the article up to scratch as quickly as possible.
Andy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy west1 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's a little complicated around here... and we get such an ungodly quantity of spam that we tend to be a little... aggressive about it. (If you want to be horrified, check out the most recent new articles and see how many of them are either spam or bored teenagers). Thanks for improving the article, and welcome to Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
have fun with that, I need to go to bed. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude, I'm tired, too. I may just catch it in the morning. -FisherQueen (Talk) 04:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
