Hello SteveK15,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged User:SteveK15 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. Musamies (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question is as follows:

What steps need to be taken at this point in order for me to start a Wikipedia page for LaLa Records being that I work for them and am able to supply factual information? Thank you.

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --SteveK15 (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC) The information is factually correct, as references here:[reply]

http://www.newsadvance.com/the_burg/music/front_row/r-b-veterans-the-delfonics-bringing-philadelphia-sound-to-phase/article_8aba7f7a-2e2a-11e4-b0ff-001a4bcf6878.html

http://www.stonesthrow.com/messageboard/index.php?showtopic=24207

http://www.whatsuppub.com/music/hot_concerts/article_b87499f0-fc84-11e3-8111-0017a43b2370.html

I can substantiate any and all other information as I work with Mr. William Hart, the owner of the record company LaLa Records and we are looking to start a Wikipedia page about the record companySteveK15 (talk) 13:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" doesn't mean "false", so supplying corroborating sources doesn't address a concern that content is promotional. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (User was trying to create their first article with guidance from IRC) --Uamaol (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines on WP:COI editing, first and foremost of which is that we discourage it,, IRC's primary guidance ought to be "Please don't." —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:SteveK15/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia🎄/tlk 16:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! SteveK15, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! /wia🎄/tlk 16:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for message. I'm not sure whether you referred to your user page or sandbox, but the content was much the same, so my comments refer to both. I deleted your article because

• it did not 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 company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. You gave no references of any kind, and I can't see how this company meets the notability criteria I've linked to. To show notability you need hard facts such as the number of employees, sales, turnover or profits. Al we have here is a recently formed company that looks, on what we are told, to be just one of many tiny independents.
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Just basically saying "this is a record company with these artists" with no real facts amounts to promotion
• I work with Mr. William Hart, the owner of the record company LaLa Records and we are looking to start a Wikipedia page—You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
• Since you clearly work for or on behalf of the company, you appear to be what we term a paid advocate. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

  Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

  Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, 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 User:SteveK15. The template ((Paid)) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: ((paid|user=SteveK15|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName)).

I hope this clarifies the issues, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]