The problem is that the article you created was a blatant advertisement for the website and the publishing company. When it was deleted, you recreated it at a different namespace at least once that I can see. When taken in the context of your username, it would certainly appear that you were attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise for these products and that is simply not allowed. I'd be willing to unblock you with the caveat that you don't simply return to recreating this deleted material, you read our policies and guidelines so you understand what we require for articles, and that you understand that returning to posting those articles without discussing the notability of these topics and providing reliable sources that establish the notability would be grounds for a reblock and possibly protection of these article namespaces from recreation.--Isotope23 14:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will read the guidelines and would like to go along with what you suggested. Thank you for the timely response. Also, I did post references but with links. What code do I use to show the references in bullet form at the bottom of the page, or cite the information? If I have any further questions, I will ask you. Thanks again! One more point I forgot to mention, why can't the article be flagged as an advertisement like this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Your_Pocket_City_Guides? Nycpocket 13:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll unblock you per my original message. Also note what Netsnipe said above about conflict of interest.
The links you posted were primary sources... i.e. they were all sites owned by the publisher. What you would need to provide is 3rd party sources demonstrating external notability.
That "advertisement" tag means that the article is written in the tone of an advertisement, not that it is an acceptable advertisement that should stay posted. The key difference between that article and the article that was deleted is the claim of notability in the In Your Pocket City Guides; that it has received praise from notable publications. This isn't cited to verify this is the case though, so that text has been tagged for fact checking. If nobody does this in a timely manner and I can't verify that text, I'll likely recommend that article for deletion as well.--Isotope23 14:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NYC-Visit is not owned by Flower Publishing or its affiliates. I would like to include something about the competitors of Flower Publishing. What would be needed to verify the article's contents? I tagged the title many times because when I searched for it using wikipedia it wouldn't appear, so I tried changing the title and it helped. Flower Publishing has been in business since 1996 and is widely known, it has received notable praise. One of your administrators can pick up the guides at the places I listed in the write up. Flower Publishing does editorials and holds creative contests. I got the distribution figures and the like from wikipedia as well as Corporate Documents which are available on the website. Please lets not delete hours of work I put in this write up. I would be willing to do anything to make this write up as fitting for your site as possible. I need some time to make the changes, I do have other tasks to fulfill as an intern here. Thank you for understanding, and the quick responses! 66.88.197.15 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what would need to be provided is evidence that multiple, reliable, third party sources have covered this guide, publisher, etc in a non-trivial manner. For example, a book review of one of the guides in the New York times would count as one source... a story about the publisher would be another. Mentions in passing would not count; they would be considered trivial, as would blog postings about the publisher/published works (unless it was an "official" blog of a notable publication). That is what I mean when I say "notable" & that is the kind of coverage that is necessary to keep an article here.--Isotope23 15:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't think I will be able to find such resources, this is not a big company like IBM. Flower Publishing is growing and is coming out with a new extension: City Loyalty Card which will be completed in about a month. I don't think, even as an intern, that Flower Publishing shouldn't be in the record books just because it is relatively small. Our guides are free the guides I linked above need New York Times publicity to get paid. The article gave alot of insight into the tourism business as well as the marketing business. Flower Publishing has a Myspace page with over 1000 people in it's network, with loyal users who are interested in what NYC has to offer, and we bring it to them. We are just like any NewsPaper which advertises for big name clients like Toy's R Us, Manhattan Mall, MTV, and many more. The rest of the content is NYC related. I will try to find what I can. Thanks
If that is the case, then at this time it would be premature for Wikipedia to have an article about the publisher. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is primarily concerned with what is already notable (at least by Wikipedia's own internal definition), not what will be in the future and there is no race for Wikipedia to cover every single thing in existance. Another guideline that might be of interest to you is WP:CORP. If you can't find sources to meet the guidelines, don't be too discouraged... just because something doesn't meet the guidelines right now doesn't mean it never will in the future.--Isotope23 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a bunch of stuff on Flower publishing's publications. Sites like, info-fresh.com, oxfordshire.com, cares4kids.org, and outsideleft.com, have write-ups on us. I will also be toneing down the ad feel to it and make it more informative. I will contact NYC-Visit for more detailed information about tourism and NY. Would that fit Wiki's guidelines? I would keep it under User-talk and have you guys look at the drafts, would that be alright? Nycpocket 13:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Make a [User:Nycpocket/Sandbox|sandbox]] and put the draft there. Let me know when it is done and I'll review it and let you know if it has a chance of survival in the wild world of Wikipedia mainspace.--Isotope23 14:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So just C/P [User:Nycpocket/Sandbox|sandbox]] to a new page to get it up?
I created it for you here... just delete the text I left there.--Isotope23 20:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
