User talk:Marycdrl

Pascall+Watson

Hi, I have to say that my first action was to block your account as a sockpuppet of User:Pascall+Watson, but I then realised that the block on that account somewhat generously allowed you to carry on editing with a new user name, so I've unblocked. You should not be editing on behalf of a company rather than yourself, but I'm not going to change another admin's block. The company is clearly notable, but I deleted the newer version of the article because it was effectively no more than an (unreferenced) list of the company's projects, which is basically just spamming. You told us little about the company itself other than locations. How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors?

You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I've seen worse, and you may be able to produce something acceptable, but you need to distance yourself from your employer and write a neutral balanced article as if you were an outside observer. Not connected to the deletion, but I suggest that you use this format for your refs to make them more informative than a bare url: <ref>[url description]</ref> Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness, your contributions don't suggest that you are a completely uninvolved new editor who just happened to pick this company at random. I'll post the deleted text here shortly. let me know if you want me to comment at any stage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the deleted page, and I absolutely cannot see anything promotional about it. Can you explain, Jimfbleak, what you see as promotional about it? And are you sure you are not allowing yourself to be unconsciously influenced by Marycdrl's previous username, which did suggest a connection to the company, and may have predisposed you to see anything she writes as being promotion for the company? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, I've given my reasons above and sandboxed the article for improvement. If you think it's OK for article space as it stands, that's fine with me. Just move it, and I'll leave it alone. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: OK, I agree that the "project list" is the sort of thing that I regard as mildly promotional, but that might at most justify removing that section, not deleting the whole article, and even then it's borderline, in my opinion. I see nothing promotional about the lead. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]