Priscilla R Yates

Nomination of Currency House Incorporated for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Currency House Incorporated 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/Currency House Incorporated 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Lakokat (Drop me a line) 05:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

The article was speedily deleted, and was then recreated and moved back to the original title. It was then proposed for deletion and declined. If you have further references, please add them to the article talk page or add the material to the article. You may also consider starting a new "Help" section here, putting {{helpme}} with questions, although response times vary. Please do not use "we" where others may infer that multiple editors are using one account. Welcome to Wikipedia! Dru of Id (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello Priscilla R Yates. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Currency House, 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 following the 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.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• 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.

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. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Currency House

Hi Priscilla! It seems your talk page is getting a tad overwhelming, but I thought I would stop by and clarify a few things, as well as offer my assistance if I can. So first, my apologies for adding to the comments, but hopefully this will help a bit.

To let you know how things went, the page you wrote, Currency House Incorporated was nominated to be discussed and possibly removed. The reason was that when you created it, you didn't provide enough evidence as to why Currency House was important. They clearly are - I've heard of Katharine Brisbane and Currency Press before, and the Platform Papers are always worth reading. But Wikipedia tends to get buried under articles about local groups, so when another contributor who saw it hadn't heard about Currency House, and didn't see enough in the article to explain why the group was significant, they nominated it for deletion. Normally the disccusion lasts seven days, so there is typically a lot of time to work on addressing any concerns.

I saw the discussion, and I thought I could help out. But while getting the references I needed, an administrator deleted the article. This is a little unusual, but happens if they feel (as in this case) that the tone was too promotional.

I thought about it a bit, and decided to do what we regard as "being bold" on Wikipedia - to rewrite it so that the original concerns weren't an issue, and see if everyone was happy with the new version. It seems they were, and thus there is an article on Currency House again, and I think that it is unlikely that it will be deleted again. My concern now is that it meant that I had to loose your original work, and you clearly know a lot about the group - and far more than I do. Thus I wanted to ask if you were interested in working with me to expand the article again back to the level of coverage you had provided before, and hopfully beyond. If so, just let me know - I would love to see Currency House covered properly on Wikipedia. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)