User talk:RupertDickinson

Welcome!

Hello, RupertDickinson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 115ash^→(☏) 13:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lucy Tapper for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucy Tapper 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/Lucy Tapper until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, RupertDickinson. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find that you are apparently the head of marketing for From Lucy. Please understand that this does pose a conflict of interest and that while you can still edit and contribute to the article for Tapper, you will be expected to know policy- possibly even better than the average editor would. So far what I'm leaning towards with the article for Tapper is that it should be sent to WP:AfC (articles for creation). What this means is that while she has received some coverage, it all seems to be local and from one paper. This doesn't really show a depth of coverage and for many at AfD (articles for deletion) local sources are greatly depreciated because it's expected that a local paper would write about someone successful that lives locally. I don't always entirely agree with this, but in this case all we have are news sources from one paper. At this point neither of the awards would really help to give notability since one of the awards has yet to be announced and the other would be considered non-notable per Wikipedia standards. This doesn't mean that the award isn't cool, just that there's a pretty high bar for awards and less than 5% of any awards given for any subject would grant notability even partially. For an award to give someone notable enough to keep on that basis alone it'd have to be very major, like the Newberry Medal or a Golden Rooster Award. If she does win the Standard's award then that'd give partial notability, but I'm not sure that it would be enough to keep on that basis alone. The best thing to do here would be to show where Tapper, her books, and/or her company have received news coverage in places other than the Western Morning News. If she's received book reviews then that could help as well, although they would have to be in places like newspapers, review outlets like Publishers Weekly, and the like. Self-published sources like blogs or customer reviews cannot show notability either. Also, I've removed the merchant links from the article. These are considered very inappropriate for Wikipedia because using them can not only come across as promotional, but it can also be seen as Wikipedia endorsing either the site or the product. I do see where you tried to be neutral, so I think that this was unintentional on your part. For what it's worth, you were a lot less promotional than some of the other marketing people that have come on to Wikipedia so that's why I think that any promotional-ness wasn't intended on your part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Tapper

The page Lucy Tapper has been moved to User:RupertDickinson/Lucy Tapper to allow you to work on it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]