Talk:Library Associates Companies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to the message on my user page the article was flagged because it "seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article." I reviewed several company articles and tried to use them as a model for the article and would appreciate input on how to make this more appropriate.
I'm not sure what the problem is:
- The article is not a blurb/stub like Jim Henson Home Entertainment
- It is more balanced than several articles -- like OCLC with it's near monopoly on library services.
Before the article was flagged:
- The article was wikified - with links to other sections of Wikipedia as I thoguht was appropriate.
- References were added to the article for the major statements of facts (the dates were for today, since I thought to verify the references that I'd gathered several months ago).
Since the article was flagged as spam:
- I removed the "Significant Clients" section (like the one found on the Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman page.
- I added a "Major Competitors" section (although I did not see a lot of company websites that mentioned more than one.
Q: Should I source the facts in the Infobox? I wasn't sure.
Jennifer Lange-Pomes (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)jpomes
