Talk:Letts of London

Declining of publication
This page has been declined twice. The following notes were left to the last decliner.

Ref your comment >This could well be notable, but the sources cited are almost all primary, and many offer only passing or no mentions directly of the subject, and therefore are insufficient for establishing notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. Also, the tone is promotional.<

1 You say this is promotional in tone. You are mistaking 'not negative' for promotional. The author is in no way connected with the industry or the company. There is not much that is objectively negative about the company. Neutral can be positive - and that's not the same as promotional.

2 There is a lack of in-depth material on this company online, in part because the company initially suffered because of the internet. You say the sources cited are primary. To be clear here, there is one citation - and yes, it's primary. There are secondary sources for the same information, but I suspect they sourced the information from the primary source too. This is normal when referring to sales information.

3 The article contains virtually every online reference to the Letts company. There is an existing article about Thomas Letts which contains a lot less references and falls far below the standard being applied here. To say that there are insufficient references is begging the question. For many topics, Wikipedia is the primary reference.

Please note that there are 17 references. 4 are primary. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC) The Filox page also has LESS references.

4 Letts is a major manufacturer of a culturally significant product. If you can find any factual errors, please fix them.

The paragraph > "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." <is a standard piece that has been misapplied here. 2001:BB6:2D1D:C200:5901:4349:E64D:6569 (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)