User talk:EricaSatur

Reply
It's really difficult to write about an organisation or company, and you have no editing experience.

If you have a conflict of interest you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:   . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block, as occurred to at least one of the previous contributors. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * The deleted version was unsourced apart from its own website


 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.
 * The deleted version had no real facts or independent sources, not even any headquarters location. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, management structure turnover or profits, funding or expenditure.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * The deleted version was just fact-free promo. Aims, mission statements and blatant spam unrivalled expertise... committed to promoting and maintaining... and so on


 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
 * Largely copied from their website.

We don't restore copyright violations for legal reasons, but in any case the fact-free promo was of no value, better to start from scratch.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article.

If you have a conflict of interest, you must disclose the nature of that COI.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * EricaSatur, adding to the comment by @Jimfbleak, sources like (The Times), which says in part
 * "The institute is a professional body for the education, development and regulation of actuaries based in the UK and internationally. It was formed through the merger of the Institute of Actuaries in England and the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland in 2010. Its role includes setting disciplinary standards for its members, administering professional standards and ensuring the public has confidence in the work of actuaries."
 * are what can make a WP-article on an organization "stick". That's assuming this is the droid we're looking for, maybe this is not your organization. Even better than the The Times are books and scholarly articles about it, if they can be found. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's probably Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)