User talk:Burgo Fitzgerald

Welcome!

Hello, Burgo Fitzgerald, 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, like NetSPI, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, 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:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ShakingSpirit^talk 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on NetSPI, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page 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 the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business 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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ShakingSpirit^talk 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with NetSPI. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. ShakingSpirit^talk 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burgo, glad to see you're rewriting it :) Remember, the reason why it went last time were G11 (blatant advertising) and A7 (doesn't state notability) - A7 bares some explanation, as is doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, but that the article doesn't state why it is - i.e., why do we care about NetSPI? What makes them worth a wikipedia page? As long as you sort both of these, even if your article is short and without many sources, you can still create it in mainspace - maybe tag it with a stub tag and/or {{underconstruction}} and you'll be safe from speedy deletion, and well on your way to writing a great encyclopedic article! Which you can improve from there :) If there's anything I can help with, let me know. ShakingSpirit^talk 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated NetSPI, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetSPI. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on NetSPI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cureden 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the copyright violation notice is in error. Presumably Wikipedia noticed that some of the text of this revised article is the same as that of a previous version. But all the text is original. I have rewritten the article to address other objections, notably NPOV. I think the revision addresses those objections. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Burgo Fitzgerald[[User:|Burgo Fitzgerald]] (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The article was previously nominated for deletion, it still appears non-notable and written like an advert unfortunately. --Oscarthecat

(talk) 20:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by the assertion that the article does not meet the notability standard. There are Wikipedia articles on other consulting firms that do similar work, e.g., nCircle. My article describes the importance of the work done by NetSPI and others in ensuring that organizations comply with various security standards. Without such compliance certifications, the organizations simply would not be able to operate. Moreover, the article was written with a journalistic objectivity; it is definitely not written in the style of an advertisement: it makes no claims of superiority, for instance. It just states what the consultants in the company do,in a way similar to many other articles about companies. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version of the article was reviewed by multiple editors who found it unsuitable. If you fancy rewriting it, perhaps in your user-space WP:USERFY, I'd be happy to help review it for you. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar, Thanks for the message. The revised article, I thought, addressed the objections of Shaking Spirit, who was the only other reviewer I was aware of besides yourself. I would be happy to rewrite it. Can you move the article to my user-space? But before I can rewrite it I need to understand the objections about being non-notable and about being written in the style of an ad. It seems to me that the revised article discusses the importance of the work done by NetSPI (notability) while maintaining a neutral point of view. I have written dozens of press releases and am familiar with journalistic standards for objectivity. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar, I am not sure if this revised article is "userfied" or not. I intended to put this on my user page for review. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Burgo_Fitzgerald. In any case, this revision has several additional internal and external links, which I hope sufficiently address the notability criterion. I also went through the text and I do not find any wording that could be seen as puffery. All the statements made about NetSPI are factual and supported by frequent references. If there are statements made here that you object to, please identify them. Thanks for your help. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was userfied ok, but at wrong location, I've moved it to User:Burgo Fitzgerald/NetSPI, hope you don't mind. I've also posted a Request For Comment for it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar, Thanks for the assistance.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar, what is the usual time period for RFCs? Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, still no feedback. If you think the article meets the notability criteria then suggest you repost it at NetSPI. --Oscarthecat (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a revised article on my userpage, User:Burgo Fitzgerald/NetSPI. I think it has an NPOV, and I know it has some added references that I think strengthen the case for notability. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try using Wikipedia:Article Incubator. After which you can submit it to WP:DRV. Until you've at least gone through DRV you should not try to re-create it in article space or it will be speedy deleted. Though if a company doesn't meet our notability guidelines, no amount of editing will make any difference.--Otterathome (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs a lot of cleanup. Look at the way references are done on the other articles. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs, I reformatted the references the way that QuietMove has done them. Please let me know if this is OK. Thanks. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try this link [1] Gigs (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gigs. I used the MLA style for the references. Shades of graduate school. Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV guidelines say that it is preferable to work with the editor or administrator who deleted the previous version of an article, so that's what I am doing.Burgo Fitzgerald (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Crelow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Crelow. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NetSPI is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetSPI (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Burgo Fitzgerald. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Crelow".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]