Talk:Viaspace

Argument against speedy delete as db-spam

Part 1

This article was incorrectly marked for speedy deletion based on the opinion that this article is "written like an advertisement."

According to the Wikipedia page, "What Wikipedia is not," 2.3 part 5 states:

5. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Firstly, this article is in fact written in an objective and unbiased style. There is no subjectivity or bias written into this article.

Secondly, I already recieved a flag regarding third-party varifiability and am working on adding third party references. I was previously unaware that the references had to be from third parties and since I was correctly notified about this issue, I am complying without question. But again, that issue was already brought to my attention in a flag that was not marked for speedy deletion.

There are no promotions or public service announcements in this article.

---

Part 2

Another part of this flag states: Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.

This article is already written from a neutral point of view. According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View page, I am clearly within all of Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality. If there is a dispute on a specific part of my Wikipedia article that you do not believe is neutral, please bring it to my attention so we can address the issue.

---

Part 3

The other part of the flag states: For blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic.

There is no blatant advertising in this Wikipedia article. In fact there is no advertising in this article period. Please see Part 1 of this dispute for reasons why this article is not an advertisment.

---

Part 4

Regarding the specific flag, db-spam to mark for speedy deletion.

Clicking on the db-spam links to the page, Template:Db-g11. According to Db-g11

This template may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because it does nothing but promote some entity or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic.

This article does not promote some entity or product. It is an informational article and provides a thorough and detailed account of the corporate history of Viaspace along with brief account of the current business structure. There is no advertisement or promotion of any entity or product.

---

Part 5.

Clicking on the speedy deletion on the flag links to the "Criteria for speedy deletion" page.

According to this page:

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. db-g11, db-spam, db-promo

My page is not exclusively promotional therefore would not need to be fundamentally rewritten. In fact, my page is not promotional in the least, therefore most likely does not need to be rewritten at all to become encyclopedic.

Since my article is simply about a company, yet does not break any promotional and/or advertisement rules, my article does not qualify for this criterion. My article does not qualify for deletion and does not qualify for flag on promotional grounds.

---

Part 6.

If you have any issues with my article, specific or not, please bring them to my attention I we can address this issue constructively.

Please take into account that Viaspace's revenue comes from government contracts, such as with the Navy and Army on products that aren't sold to individual consumers. Viaspace holds some high tech fuel cell patents and has confidentiality agreements with large OEMs such as Samsung, Hitachi, HP, Toshiba, Sony for which Viaspace is allowing these companies to use fuel cell devices in their electronic devices in exchange for these companies using Viaspace as the main fuel cartridge supplier. It's a little complex, but the point is that Viaspace has no reason to promote to the general public to sell products. Viaspace is dealing exclusively with manufacturers. It will be the Toshibas and Samsungs of the word who will have to deal with advertising and promotional activities in respect to this part of Viaspace's business. Viaspace also grows grass for biofuel. Viaspace is looking to contract with power plants to sell them grass to burn instead of coal. Viaspace is not trying to sell grass to the everday individual consumer. Viaspace is looking for long term contracts. There is no advertising within my Viaspace article and absolutely no reason or need to advertise on wikipedia.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by CleanFuture (talk • contribs) 07:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I don't support speedy delete under db-spam for this article. Having said that it's worth looking at WP:ORG. VIASPACE's notability needs to be established i.e. "it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." If it can't be established someone will eventually nominate it for deletion via the articles for deletion process. The references need cleaning up a bit. I made this edit to show you how to name and re-use a reference because I noticed that you have multiple instances of the same reference. I don't know whether you are connected to the company (and it isn't a problem if you are) but just in case, you should be aware of the conflict of interest guideline. Also, don't forget to sign your posts here with four tildes or click the signature button. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To make it less advert like you could try to reduce the all caps name to Viaspace. Unless you can prove otherwise it should nto be all capitals letters. Also mention the company less often in your writing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To Sean.hyland, Thank you for not supporting speedy delete under db-spam. How do I take action to remove this speedy delete flag? Do I notify the person who marked my article or will he automatically know to join into this discussion here on the Viaspace discussion page?

I will establish notability by including reliable and independent secondary sources.

Thank you for the edit which provides referencing instruction. I will apply it to other instances where I've used the same reference.

I read the conflict of interest page and do not fall under any COI category. There is no conflict of interest.

I will sign my posts.

To Graeme Bartlett, If you read paragraph 5 of Corporate history, the explanation for my use of all capital letters in reference to VIASPACE was clearly provided from the initial publication of this article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I now see that I must add (as opposed to reduce) capital letter usage in a few instances in which I neglected to spell VIASPACE with all capital letters. ViaSpace is spelled ViaSpace prior to 2005. After, 2005, Viaspace is spelled VIASPACE (all caps). This was clearly written and cited and writing the name in lower case would be incorrect.

I will limit the use of the company name in my writing. I will use "the company" and other related terms in it's place when applicable.

CleanFuture (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC) CleanFuture (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Removal of Speedy Deletion Tag

Although it is in the opinion of the original author of the VIASPACE article that the VIASPACE article has always been in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, there should no longer be any dispute as to whether or not this article is currently written well within encyclopedic bounds. Therefore, it is being requested that the Speedy Deletion tag be removed. Regards CleanFuture (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Viaspace Logo

A higher resolution logo will be uploaded soon.CleanFuture (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? The logo is readily visible as it is, and the non-free content guidelines say that images should be uploaded in low resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason is because the small print of the logo was not legible with the previous jpg. The first logo did not seem like an authentic Viaspace logo. It seemed as though a third party source stretched the picture beyond its original demensions. So I uploaded the logo that the Viaspace website currently displays on their official website. I am not concerned about resolution. It was the stretched, irregular dimensions that distorted the image that concerned me. Also, Viaspace no longer uses the first logo anymore. The small print is now green as opposed to the previous black. CleanFuture (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of visual differences between the old and new logos. Accordingly, I agree with using a current, verifiable logo instead of an old or artist's rendering of the logo. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEPROD

Evidence of notability in HighBeam search. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)