User talk:Tphanich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You had five days to make any significant changes to the page to persuade our decision to delete the article. Apparently, you did not make these changes, and so I deleted the page according to Wikipedia policy. Before I deleted your article, I checked to see if it was linked to other articles, or if it generated a lot of Google hits. It failed both, so I deleted the page. Please do not re-create the page once it has been deleted, as this violates Wikipedia policy. I am deleting this new re-created page as it violates CSD G4. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. Nishkid64 19:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see you left me a second message. I just want to clarify some things. I am 16 years old, and I go to high school in the United States. I do not spend my whole life on Wikipedia, so I would appreciate some patience on your part. Second of all, speedy deletion does not require discussion, and neither do Prods. Speedy deletion is used when it's a definite violation of Wikipedia policy, and it can be deleted without discussion. Prod is a proposed deletion, and a message for a prod is placed on an article page. Any user can remove this prod if they believe that the deletion is not warranted by justifying why it is notable, or if they can make major improvements to the article. The prod was placed on the page on October 3, and following procedure, I was supposed to delete the article on October 8 if no one made any significant edits or any justifications to keep the article (on the talk page). Nothing of that nature happened, so I deleted the article according to procedure. Prods are like speedy deletion, but they have to be kept up for a minimum of 5 days before deletion. There is no formal discussion for prods like an AfD or something, but you can remove the prod from the page, and discuss its deletion with the editor who placed the prod in the first place. If you really thought the article was warranted, you should have done that.

For your page, I know that I went to Google, and I looked at "What links here" to see if the topic of your article was notable. I did not see many Google hits, and I only saw the article linked to 3 other articles (2 of which were just bot-generated prod lists). I don't believe it is a matter of compliance, but really a matter of notability. The company is not notable, and therefore an article should not be placed on Wikipedia for the company. I have been participating in AfD's for a long time, and I have seen many company-related articles similar to Quasimoto get deleted. If you still believe the article should not be deleted, feel free to go to deletion review. Thanks, and happy editing. Nishkid64 19:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Our previous web ranking was at 200,000. We have recently changed web servers.

You keep saying that there are other examples. Where are they? Show me some. There are hundreds of companies added to Wikipedia a day that shouldn't warrant an article, and almost 99% of the time, they are deleted either on the spot, or by prod or AfD. Also, an Alexa ranking of 300,000 is not particularly notable. We have deleted articles about websites that had Alexa rankings as low as 40,000. If you really think your company will be noteworthy in December, then you may come back and check back up on me to see if I and other admins agree on its notability. Otherwise, I believe the company is not notable, and you are just taking advantage of Wikipedia for advertising purposes. Finally, don't keep making references to my age. I may be 16, but that has no relevance to my competence as an admin. I was voted to be an admin based on my maturity, behavior, and helpfullness on Wikipedia. Besides, the number of patents should not really justify a company's article on Wikipedia. Heck, my father has around 15-20 chemical patents himself, but he's not on here. Nishkid64 21:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. You brought up my age as a derogatory comment in the deletion review just because you thought it made a difference in my judgment. I can care less what some person thinks about my age. At the time you added that comment to DRV, I just wanted to know why it was added and what relevance it had, but I guess the problem is solved now, so let's drop the issue.

One of the other reasons why there is no support for keeping the article in the DRV is because you are only using Wikipedia as means of advertising. It seems you just made this account to make that one article, and you yourself said you were the marketing director of the company, and you most probably were trying to advertise your company with this article. Pelican Accessories appeared to be notable at first (from Google and "what links here"), but from taking a look at the Alexa ranking, I started to doubt myself. Their website has an Alexa ranking of around 2,000,000 and I speculate that most of the hundreds of thousands of G-hits I got were probably either done by Googlebombing or just advertisements on websites. I am actually considering putting the article up for AfD. It doesn't seem too notable, but I may be wrong (not much a video gamer nowadays, so I'm not all into this accessories stuff).

Finally, my father does have 15-20 patents that are important to what he does. He is an synthetic chemist at Hoffmann-La Roche, and all of his patents are new potent chemical compounds and molecules that can be used to fight diseases. In fact, one of his compounds is currently in Stage II of FDA drug testing, and may be out in the market in a few years. But he's not on Wikipedia, because he isn't notable. Sure, he's written his share of papers, but he does not have something majorly important as compared to Leo Sternbach, a former HLR chemist who was famous for making the blockbuster pain reliever drug Valium (made billions of dollars annually 20-30 years back). Anyway, I understand that your reasons for wanting to have the article on Wikipedia, and I respect it, but I just don't believe your company is notable in general. Nishkid64 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quasimoto Follow-Up

I'm not going to delete other articles that ARE notable just because you are upset that your company's article was deleted.

It's a done issue. Give it up. See [1] Nishkid64 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Quasimoto-interactive-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Quasimoto-interactive-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)