User talk:Selwyndvr

Welcome to my Talk Page
Please see my user page for more information about me and for my thoughts on Wikipedia's five pillars, conflicts of interest, and for more information on my contributions. I try to present the subjects I edit and create from a neutral point of view but if you feel that something I contributed includes unintentional bias, please edit the page, put your thoughts on the talk page, or contact me to discuss. If you would like to contact me, please leave a message on this page. If I leave you a message on your talk page or other page, I will watch that page so there is no need to notify me of responses posted to those pages on my talk page.

Speedy deletion nomination of Wyn Consulting
A tag has been placed on Wyn Consulting, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Wyn Consulting and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability
While I don't think it falls into blatant advertising, the article did not meet Wikipedia's standards for the notability of corporations and was deleted. Please review those guidelines; I don't think a three-person accounting firm is eligible, barring a very newsworthy incident, which I doubt is what's desired.  Acroterion  (talk)  02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to "Notability" and Speedy deletion Nomination of Wyn Consulting
Hi Acroterian and Capitalismojo,

Its been a little more than a week since I wrote this article so sorry for the delay in responding... I'm new to Wikipedia and the policies so bear with me a little here. The Wyn Consulting article was originally tagged for speedy deletion under speedy deletion criteria G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I promptly placed the hangon tag to the article and explained the reasons that I felt the article should not be marked for speedy deletion under G11. Later that evening, I noticed that the article had been deleted regardless and a different reason was given for deletion. (A7) Acroterian also referenced notability of corporations (which is not specifically on the Criteria for speedy deletion page) and agreed that the article was not blatent advertising. (see above) Since notability is not in itself listed on the criteria for speedy deletion page, I'd ask that the article be restored (along with the original article's talk page) so that I can have an opportunity to present the reasons why the company is important or significant and perhaps adjust the article to include these reasons more explicitly.

The company has been featured in multiple Microsoft articles that are distributed nationwide, has been selected by Intuit to be one of about 300 firms to represent them, out of approximately 50,000 accounting firms nationwide, has many clients all over the country, are considered to be a leader of the experts in the field in many ways, etc. I can more fully present these reasons and others why I believe the organization is important and significant on the talk page once the article is restored. I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways in the future in articles relating to accounting software, consulting, financial areas, and more and feel that I am well positioned to add to these areas.Selwyndvr (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the A7 criterion for speedy deletion is no assertion of notability, not an actual lack of notability, although in practice they are much the same. I saw no assertion that the company is notable (and you can't simply state that it is, there must be some semblance of a rationale). The article was not blatant advertising, but it was very much borderline advertisement and generally promotional in nature. As I said, a three-person accounting firm is unlikely to be notable, whether Intuit likes you or not.  I will also point out that you probably have a conflict of interest here.  Has the firm received non-trivial media coverage in multiple outlets, preferably of national standing? Can this be backed up? That's what notability is.
 * I am willing to place the article in your userspace for you to develop, if that is satisfactory. You will need to assert notability and back it up in some credible manner for the article to survive in article space.  Acroterion  (talk)  21:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd agree that my G-11 speedy tag was in error. The A-7 tag was more accurate. I am no admin to help you save your article, but clearly Acroterion is inclined to be helpful. Good luck. As a suggestion; if your firm has received an award (not certifications) or public prize that may assist with notability issues.  You still probably have a WP:COI issue to work on though....Capitalismojo (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. I'll have to locate, and familiarize myself with the userspace...  As far as the conflict of interest goes, how would I address this?  I would think that any article written about a company would require a company owner or employee to start the article since they know more about the subject than the customers, vendors, or anyone else.  Couldn't you say that an astronomer writing about topics related to astronomy has a conflict of interest since he benefits from more people reading about the subject?  Same goes for an IT professional writing about network design or computer related topics or in my case, an accounting software consultant writing about topics relating to accounting software.  In general, wouldn't you expect the experts in each field to be writing about topics within their own fields, or the company owners and employees to be writing about thier companies since they have the appropriate information to construct the articles?  I ask these questions not to be argumentative, but to ascertain how I should address the conflict of interest problem.  Is it better to just state my position with the company as I am writing the article?  Should I do this as I write and update other articles within the accounting software space? Selwyndvr (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you've made a space to work on the article. In general, Wikipedia is pleased when experts write about their field of expertise. It's when they write about themselves, their business or other topics where it isn't possible for even the best-intentioned to write objectively that we become concerned. That's what COI is about - the creation of the necessary editorial distance between editor and subject. I write about architecture because it's my profession and I know a lot of context to inform my writing.  I will not write about my firm, even if it meets the notability standard (and it doesn't).   Acroterion  (talk)  18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article on your work page. If you can put together some real notability for it, please contact me again. I'm glad to see notable companies added to the project. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)