Talk:Softcat

Questionable sections
The "Charitable Activities" and "Corporate Social Responsibility" seem un-encyclopedic to me. Discussion? davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Partnerships section
I removed this section while the page was at WP:AFC in December ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softcat&diff=587168815&oldid=581766845 diff]). Its presence made the page read more like an advertisement than is appropriate for a Wikipedia page. It was recently restored. I removed it again ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softcat&diff=next&oldid=589906143 diff]). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  17:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Companies do what they do
I removed the bit about what the company does, since the items that were listed are understood for this type of business. It's like saying "McBurgerBox is a fast-food restaurant. It serves food to customers who order food off of a menu." I previously removed this material prior to accepting it at AFC. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Softcat&diff=587169961&oldid=587169267 diff]). davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To all editors: Do you have any close connection to this company?
Two editors have restored material that was removed during the Articles for creation process. Prior to removing this material as part of the AFC process, the AFC submission was declined as being "written like an advertisement" (edit of November 12). The original submitter removed some items and I removed some more then I accepted the submission. This near-verbatim restoration could just be a coincidence, but it gives the appearance that one or both of these editors may have a conflict of interest in editing this article.

Any editor who has any connection with this company whatsoever should read Conflict of interest and decide if it applies to you. If it does apply, you should propose changes on this talk page rather than editing the page directly unless the edit is required to comply with Wikipedia policies (e.g. removal of a copyright violation) or it does not affect the content in any meaningful way (e.g. fixing a typo).

All editors, whether they have a conflict of interest or not, should make an effort to balance the need for encyclopedic content against the need to keep out content which has the effect of being promotional. While almost all content in pages about corporations will be at least slightly promotional of the company or provide information which is at least slightly negative about the company, some content, such as lists of customers or partners, is more promotional than other content, such as the city in which the business is headquartered. The more promotional the content is, the more encyclopedic value it should have in order to be part of the article. In any case, the tone must be as neutral as possible, promotional terms (called "peacock words") should generally not be used at all. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  18:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed Changes =

Nov 2015: Softcat is now a plc (see footer) and has an increased turnover figures. The company has also announced its intention to float on the LSE.