Talk:Lincoln Industrial

Doing my best to adapt a paper I did for college to meet Wikipedia criteria.

I am an employee of the company, but I have done my homework on the accuracy of the content. I was accepted into an international social studies honors society (Phi Gamma Mu) because of this paper.

I have excellent images that help to illustrate the article.

The company's history will be interesting and important to thousands and thousands of people.

More specific feedback would be more helpful than simply deleting the article.

(Kenneth Walsh, Manager of Marketing Communications and Research 01:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

I understand this is an article about a company.

There are other articles about other companies in Wikipedia. When I look at the article on Microsoft I see information about an important company with some of the same elements that my article contains.

So is it the content that causes concern, or the relative importance of my company?

My company literally grew up with the American automobile and the products we invented represent important milestones in the development of automotive care.

Again, I'd like to understand what specific details represent advertising in the mind(s) of those suggesting deletion.

(Kenneth Walsh, Manager of Marketing Communications and Research 01:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

Have you read WP:ADVERT? - Rjd0060 17:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to proceed with improvements to the page, but I hesitate to take the time if my efforts will be wasted.

Can we move forward with a decision?

(67.66.134.100 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

I will make addition edits to eliminate information that may be seen as advertising or PR.

(Kenneth Walsh, Manager of Marketing Communications and Research 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

As the reviewing administrator, i think it possible that the article can be improved, and I'm declining the speedy.. In addition to the advice, above, Please see the page WP:BFAQ for suggestions on how to deal with it. DGG (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your help on this. I understand the standards and will do what is necessary to ensure this article complies. (67.66.134.100 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Looking at the suggestions:

The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. ------

I read the note on Tone, and found the major issue there to be that some articles are submitted in first person or second person. This article is written in third person, so I am not sure how this suggestion applies.

The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. ------

I can certainly understand this to be an immediate concern when an article is submitted about the history of a company. Further, it is concerning when the author is a communications professional working for the company.

The article is taken from a paper I wrote for a college class. I have taken care to ensure that the article is not bias or promotional in nature. The intent is to present an accurate history on a company that has been in business for almost 100 years.

This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (October 2007) -------

I need to look into this more. However, it is late and I need a clear head to do a good job on this. I will return to my work on this soon.

By the way, the suggestion to look at WP:BFAQ is most helpful. I will read that again before starting my next round of edits.

(Kenneth Walsh, Manager of Marketing Communications and Research 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Partial Story Problem

This article is problematic. It is an example of why one should be careful to post stories of companies.

This story only convers a portion of the scope of Lincoln Industrial. It fundamentally covers only part of the history of only the St Louis-based portion of a much larger company. As such there is more history omitted than history reported. Further, the story is out of date. More or less, the story ends in the mid-50's. Much has happened since. A reference like this would need at least annual updating by someone willing to do the work.

Finally, the references are not fitting(in my opinion)to Wikipedia standards because they are almost exclusively non-public. Public references are available, but someone has to do the work to research them and provide reference tracks.

My suggestion is to withdraw this article, or at a minimum, retitle it to fit the scope and content of the story.

Connie Hawk (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

September 2020

The article has content that seems unconstructive. Please view history and check. Thank you. Chinogrids (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)