User talk:Yana114

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Yana114, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Marimedia[edit]

Hello Yana114,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Marimedia for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. LS1979 (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yana. The bits about products and links to primary sources suggested to me that there was a promotional intention behind the article. Generally speaking, articles which quote what the company produces and sells tend to be over-emphasising these at the expense of what makes the company notable. Other articles exist, but you should be able to quote reliable sources to demonstrate the company is talked about beyond its public offering. You word the article as if you're putting it in front of potential users and investors, not as if you're putting it in front of a generalised audience; for instance, even without peacock words, the first sentence pushes a product at me, using words which are industry-specific, emphasising their services and their targeted market. If you want to re-word that, how about something like, simply:

Marimedia is an online marketing company aimed at publishers [set up by] [in X year] [floated on A stockmarket in Y year] [etc].

No WP:Puffery about what you offer at all. Basically, this cuts out all those words you added in order to make us aware of what the business does. First of all, however, you need to establish that this company is notable per guidelines for corporations. Simply because another company has an article does not make your company notable; you have to justify that based on the above rules.

Using existing articles as templates is fine, but be aware that new page patrollers do not automatically look for similar companies, and in any case their article existing does not mean your article will automatically be notable. The article you quote contains a lot of dubious links - to corporate profiles rather than actual discussion - and so I'd be inclined to improve on it or even take it to Articles for Deletion over notability/advertorial concerns too.

Although no-one has declined the speedy deletion request, no-one has removed it either, so perhaps if this article gets deleted, take a draft to WP:Articles for Creation and get someone to assist you there. I can't promise I'd see that draft, but it would help to get other opinions on your work rather than you making assumptions about what is and is not notable or promotional. LS1979 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yana, I also responded to your note on my talk page, although I was not the deleting admin. StarM 03:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Marimedia[edit]

Star Mississippi pinged me to draw attention to your post, I apologize for the apparent error there, but I am only borrowing his deletion explanation page, so inquires concerning pages I delete should be made at User talk:TomStar81. Its no a particularly big deal, just something I'm apparently going to have to rethink in the future. Anyway...

You have asked for an explanation for the speedy deletion of the article Marimedia, which is why I am replying here. In answer to your question, your article is written such that it uses a lot of words which convey advertising and promotion, while saying very little for the company itself. This was reason G11 tag on your article. I added the A7 tag after rereading the article for a third time because the content in the article gave no indication of why the company would warrant an article on Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines: there were no indications of product awards, groundbreaking designs, global demand, etc. If these two issues could be worked out then the article may have a chance to remain here, but keep in mind that sometimes working out these issues means waiting for a months or years until the general notability of the subject matter reaches critical mass. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]