User talk:Cherylluzet

Speedy deletion nomination of James and James Fulfilment Ltd
Hello Cherylluzet,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged James and James Fulfilment Ltd for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of James and James Fulfillment Ltd
Hi Cheryl

Thanks for reaching out to understand more about what is and what isn't a Wikipedia style article. Its important that we get articles right on wiki, but also important that you feel that you can contribute freely. Ive had a number of articles declined so understand your position.

I felt that James and James was far too promotional. Id recommend that you read up on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability) which will give you some idea of what should and shouldn't be on wiki. Whilst you say that they are a Queens Award winner for 2016, there are over 240 other winners too, so I'm not sure that is basis alone for being notable. I additionally didn't find anything significant about fulfilment on wikipedia. An alternative that I can see is that you may wish to edit the list page for the 2016 winners, and perhaps convert the list to a table to describe what each of the winners did (including James and James) to  made it the winner of the Queens Award. That I think would meet the notability guidelines. Until James and James becomes something more significant, I just don't see that it warrants its own page. Happy to discuss further! Jamesbushell.au (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of James and James Fulfillment Ltd
Hi Cheryl Im still not feeling that J&J are notable enough to warrant their own page because of this, especially given the low level of notability I think fulfillment has in the first place. Also, your comment seems to support my view that you are writing the article from a promotional perspective (ie "One area that I hoped to bring out in the article was James and James' status as a certified organic warehouse?"). Wikipedia isn't really a place for promotion, its a place for the recording of notable facts, which im not totally sure youre doing. I think my suggestion above is probably the best for now, another alternative is to talk about them on the organic fulfillment page, along with any other significant organic fulfillment companies in the world. Hopefully you can see my point of view? Jamesbushell.au (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (2016) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (2016) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (Technology) (1979) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)