User talk:Ivculbert

Welcome!

Hello, Ivculbert, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Black, Starr & Frost, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, 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! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Black, Starr & Frost

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

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Black, Starr & Frost, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black, Starr & Frost

Hi. I removed a fair chunk of info on this page as it was clearly promotional. I think the company is certainly notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, however, so encourage further efforts. I do suggest you should probably look at this page and a few other policies (e.g., supplying sources for everything which could be construed as 'positive' etc) and avoid using words like "legendary" in the future though! Cheers, Nik thestunned 10:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nik, I believe I have removed everything you're talking about. Can you take a look and see if it meets the correct criteria? I also added more citation where I could find them. A lot of the info on this page is difficult to cite because it is information only held in the books of Black, Starr & Frost and not available on the internet because it's so old. I hope that we can still leave it in because it is very significant to the company's history. This is my first Wiki page, so I do want to make sure I get it right. Thanks! Ingrid Ivculbert (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingrid. Firstly, as you work for a PR firm for which this company is a client, you should no longer edit this page at all. See Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy for more information. Secondly, information should only be added to the article is it HAS been reported in reliable sources independent of the company. Which is to say, all information must be sourced and not by 1) the company website, 2) the press releases issued by the company or 3) interviews with company personnel (there are some caveats to these but generally they are true). So as for what's there now, I'd say it needs to be heavily redacted... The whole timeline section needs to be pared down and properly sourced (especially where promotional), the 'notable clients' list is pure promo, some press release sources need removing. I will put some time into it at some point this week and we can go from there. One positive thing I can say is the company is notable enough and the article should remain! Let me know if you've any further questions. Nik thestunned 15:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help. I will also go through more to address your comments above. I would very much appreciate if, though, if you could remove the "conflict of interest" because I am NOT getting paid to do this page. I am working on this independently of the PR agency for experience only in this type of writing. Thanks so much! Ivculbert (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You work for a PR firm who lists this company as a client, you absolutely do have a 'close connection' with the subject - the tag is therefore appropriate I'm afraid. Cheers, Nik thestunned 16:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so what's the workarond since I started this process? How do we ever get that box removed? Ivculbert (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone unaffiliated with the company edits the article until it's in-line with policy. As mentioned I'll get round to that at some point this week, unless another editor gets there first. Nik thestunned 17:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks again for your guidance :) Ivculbert (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]