Talk:Luminary Group

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Lumenary (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) it cites legislative and business dealings of measurable significance, supported by various sources. Other licensing businesses, no more prominent than Luminary Group, have long-standing entries on Wikipedia. As the exclusive licensing representative of iconic personalities like Babe Ruth, Vince Lombardi, and Jesse Owens, among others, the work and activities of Luminary Group affect advertising, television, merchandise, Broadway, and many other aspects of modern life. Luminary's founder has recently led to the passage of a bill which concerns legal recognition for deceased iconic personalities. Sources like Billboard, Variety, and the ABA, the Hollywood Reporter regularly consult with Luminary Group and often publish comments from Luminary's leadership. Thanks for your consideration and happy to respond to any inquiries preventing deletion. (Lumenary (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

Are you associated with the company? Your username suggests you are. If so please read the conflict of interest policy. Regarding you statement above, the fact that other companies may have articles here is not in itself a reason why this one should be. The particular issue here is that what you have written appears to be an advert for the company and not a neutral article. If you can reword it so that it has a neutral point of view then it would not qualify for speedy deletion. As an example this sentence "Luminary Group is the exclusive worldwide representative of iconic personalities" is purely promotional. In addition the "references" are about the individuals the company supposedly represents and not about the company. If the article survives deletion it will need references that demonstrate the notability of the company itself QU ^TalkQu 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Yes, I am associated with the company, but because I am mindful of the conflict of interest policy, I made every effort to preserve a neutral tone. All of the information presented in the write up is legally accurate and verifiable, though I am more than willing to remove any unnecessary adjectives or adverbs that might be the source of the problem. For example, the statement that Luminary Group is the exclusive worldwide representative is not a promotional or advertising statement, it is a statement of fact stemming from the representation appointment by the families/owners of the rights to these iconic personalities. It also seems that the notability of the company is demonstrated by the cited articles from Billboard, American Bar Assocation, Variety, etc., as well as our work in bringing campaigns like Broadway's Lombardi to fruition. Luminary's involvement in changing legislation and providing expert testimony in landmark lawsuits is also objectively significant and notable. Any help in crafting the article is appreciated, not trying to do anything improper. (Lumenary (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

Various revisions were made based on the input above, to preserve the neutral tone. (Lumenary (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)).

I've done a couple of things. I've removed the speedy deletion tag as this clearly isn't spam, thank you. I've removed the references that are links to the clients' web sites. This article is about the company so the references would be about the company, not the people it represents. These aren't true reliable sources anyway as they are not independent of the individuals. I've added some wikilinks so people interested in the clients can navigate to their articles. I've added an Advert tag. This won't lead to the article being deleted, it is a flag for other editors to help out in ensuring the tone is neutral. At the moment, for example, the article lacks any real discussion of the company, its history, any negative feedback and reads rather like its own web site. Finally I've changed the format a little to be closer to Wikipedia's manual of style. Thanks QU ^TalkQu 08:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)