Talk:CastTV

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

About Speedy Delete - SPAM opinion

The fact of the matter is that this article "does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic," (Template:Db-spam) which is the definition of a spam article. It needs to be written from a distanced viewpoint, not from the "I work for the company and am going to deliberately write in the most positive light for the company" viewpoint. I absolutely believe that if it cannot be written from a more dispassionate standpoint, it should not be on Wikipedia. Pollenberg (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We're Getting Noticed" isn't a reason to maintain the article

The article still needs to be written in an encyclopedic and academic standpoint. I have no doubt that CastTV is very viable, notable, and worth featuring an article about; however, without a fundamental rewrite of the content, that will be very hard to do. Pollenberg (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have suggestions on how to make the article more encyclopedia/academic. This is a first Wikipedia draft and I want to make sure you are satisfied with it. (Mardeo (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Re: How to improve

My suggestion would be to ask someone who has a more Neutral Point-of-View (who isn't attached/associated to your company), and who has experience writing (perhaps a B.A. Honours/Distinction English, or M.A. English, etc.) for Wikipedia would be a good start. It is hard for anyone who is passionate about their own project to write neutrally, dispassionately, and candidly about their work; just as it is near impossible for a new mother to see any imperfections or problems with her newborn baby - There's a natural attachement which is perfectly human, but impairs our judgement. In marketing, we call this "selective distortion," and it's a natural occurance; one only percieves the information which supports one's own viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollenberg (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Web site down?

The external link URL redirects to a page which for me does not load. --RichardAlexanderHall (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]