User talk:Rosewriters

Welcome!

Hello, Rosewriters, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as C.W. Henderson, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! reddogsix (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pubz.Me

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Pubz.Me requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it 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.

If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pubz.Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism

The article, ScholarlyEditions needed considerable editing to remove promotionalism, which I did.

It needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Use neutral terms. Avoid adjectives. Avoid duplication. And describe it correctly and fairly: the content is not scientific articles, it is summaries & excerpts of scientific articles published elsewhere.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to prospective clients--that sort of content is considered promotional. A list of selected titles is considered especially promotional--there is an excellent place for it, which is the organization's web page. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, which are usually more expansive. Reference to material accessible on the web should include the web links, so they can be more easily found and checked. And factual data about the market share, extent to which the product has actually been sold, and similar matters usually helps, if there's a reliable quantitative source.

As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest or as a paid press agent, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity. So far,in my opinion as an admin who often works with publishing company and related articles, you have not been doing it properly.

All the above applies also to Pubz.Me -- with the exception that Pubz.me has received greater press attention. The attention to ScholarEditions is primarily based on press releases, which do not show notability and are strongly discouraged sources. I'm going to give it some attention next. After that NewsRx, LLC. That one concerns me the most of all of them. Possibly they should all be combined. Better one strong article than three weak ones. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For further information see our FAQ about business, organizations, and articles like this and also WP:FIRST. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]