User talk:Josephopelman

Test

Speedy deletion of Peacock insurance

A tag has been placed on Peacock insurance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Roleplayer (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Peacock insurance

A tag has been placed on Peacock insurance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Roleplayer (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Peacock insurance

A tag has been placed on Peacock insurance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Roleplayer (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Peacock insurance, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Roleplayer (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Peacock insurance

A tag has been placed on Peacock insurance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

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 a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as peacock insurance, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Booglamay (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Peacock Insurance

The reason for the page's deletion is evident in all the notices above - the page didn't (in any of its recreations) specify how the company was notable. Being notable isn't necessarily being different, nor is it being the first company to do something particular - theoretically, I could set up a company today that sold the world's first banana-flavoured parrot outfits - but that wouldn't necessarily make "us" notable. What may, however, is if we had had non-trivial coverage (that is, an article or section of an article based around us - not merely an advert) in a respected media outlet - newspapers/websites or similar. WP:ORG outlines the Wikipedia criteria for companies and organisations - hopefully this will clear up any question you have. Cheers! Booglamay (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to put across. I can't see where I've said that notability is a matter of opinion. The above notices all comment on the article's lack of assertion of ability - assertion and actual notability are two seperate entities. As the article is no longer present, I can but assume it was similar to the text on your user page. Ultimately, the text does not pass WP:ORG. Booglamay (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is the information provided in the article does not state why the business is notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines). This is not the same as whether the business is notable. The business must pass at least one criteria. This may be the case - but the one source you provided doesn't really qualify as a credible source - it seems to be a club's website (and therefore not authoratative).

To sum up, being notable is being different to asserting notability. This company may be notable (at least in the insurance field), but nothing was: added that showed notability (at least by Wikipedia standards). This doesn't mean the company will never have an article - but until it can fulfil the guidelines, it won't be valid. Try searching for more third-party sources from credible publications - reviews and interviews perhaps. Booglamay (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please don't try to be funny with my username. Secondly, I shall address each point you made one by one:

What I'm saying is the information provided in the article does not state why the business is notable (according to Wikipedia guidelines) I disagree - the guideline states: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources - Which Peacock has, on an important matter to the financial services industry and one "worthy of notice", a point that can not be refuted. There is undeniably no inclusion of a reliable source. Having a product or service does not automatically qualify.
This is not the same as whether the business is notable. The business must pass at least one criteria. This may be the case You imply that the listing may have passed the criteria, which I have also demonstrated above, therefore the only other point of contention would be the reliably and independence of the source. You missed my point - notability is different to assertion of notability. What I suspect may be happening (at least in this case) is that the business MAY BE notable, but you've not said how or why.
but the one source you provided doesn't really qualify as a credible source - it seems to be a club's website (and therefore not authoritative). Again I'm sorry and have to disagree, Wikipedia statues - Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including, but not limited to, charitable organizations, educational institutions, institutions, interest groups, organizations, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, religious denominations, sects, etc. Conceqently the source meets this criteria in buckets as it is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose with and interest in a particular breed of dog. Again I think you've missed my point. I've not denied that the source is an organisation. But I don't think it's authoratative enough for a third-party source. Yes - the dog organisation qualifies under Wikipedia guidelines - but that's not the issue here. It is a website that could (theoretically) be made by anyone. It's not likely, but it demonstrates the point. Being an organisation does not assert authority. If the one external link you provided is not efficient - in fact, it unrefutably states that the two organisations are linked in business terms. This could potentially create a conflict of interest, and debase your argument. It is clear from your argument that the only criteria that the article is likely to pass is how it is covered in third party sources [sic]. Without this link, the article has no standing. I'll leave you with some text from WP:NOTABILITY:
1. 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
2. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.

Booglamay (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page posts

Another thing - you seem to manage to post all your comments on (at least) my talk page twice. I don't know how you do it, but I thought I'd let you know. Booglamay (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock

Is the line "we look forward to insuring with you for along time to come" not sufficient? This is not arguable - a commecial link in business is NOT NEUTRAL. Besides - I can't see where you missed me quoting guidelines ("You instead make no valid points which ARE reinforced by exact guideline or policy"). Please refer to my last post where I outlined:

The validity of sources
The definition of notability
The guidelines on conflict of interest.

I'm not able to see how you think these are irrelevant. You've COMPLETELY missed my point on the fact that the businesses are somehow linked - financially - and the resulting validity of the source.

Booglamay (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also keen to end this, so I won't comment on the matter again. I'll look into that article you sent me - but you must remember - each article must be treated independently, and so (as per WP:OTHERSTUFF) arguments should not be based solely on what other articles do or do not exist. Cheers Booglamay (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Josephopelman

A tag has been placed on User:Josephopelman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article 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 our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ 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 [[ Talk:User:Josephopelman|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 a copy be emailed to you. Ironho lds 00:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]