Talk:Katzenbach Partners

message: This article has been re-posted after a speedy deletion. The author is different from the first time around, but I'm still concerned that this was posted by an employee or associate of the company. I'm tagging it with a  until I find out otherwise.
Additionally, the Jon Katzenburg linked to in the article is not the one connected to this company. It redirects to John Katzenburg (note the "h" in the name).
The Vault.com link is not specific. The claims of company size and future office in London are not sourced; they are what lead me to believe someone in the company wrote this. Realkyhick 16:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI issues again on re-posted article 

message: With regards to your message:
* I created this article.  I assert that I do not have a conflict of interest of any kind with regards to this topic.  Kindly instruct me as to the proper process for removing the  tag from this page.
* With respect to Jon Katzenbach, I believe that there is confusion on two fronts.  Firstly, you have incorrectly referred to the gentleman as Mr. "Katzenburg"Talk:Katzenbach_Partners (emphasis added). Cursory examination of the topic title as well as the contents of the article reveal that there is no (and never was) any reference to any Katzenburg.  Rather, I believe the two men you have in confusion are Jon Katzenbach (consultant, author) and John Katzenbach (fiction author).  Secondly, this confusion may have been amplified by a pre-existing redirect that was sending some requests for "Jon Katzenbach" to John Katzenbach: I have corrected this error (certainly someone typing "Jon Katzenbach" (note the lack of "h" and the "bach" in the name) is trying to find the business author whereas someone typing "John Katzenbach" (note the "h" and the "bach" in the name) is trying to find the fiction author.  Perhaps further disambiguation is required, but I believe this to be outside the scope of this discussion.
* I have revised the Vault citations to reference specific pages.
* I have added a citation for the company's size.  This figure is widely available from multiple sources.
* I have removed the reference to a London office pending a citation.
* I read the  Wikipedia Notability guideline in its entirety.  This guideline states that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."Wikipedia:Notability (emphasis added).  "Significant" refers to sources that "address the subject directly in detail"Wikipedia:Notability: you will find that each of the articles referenced treats Katzenbach Partners in detail.  I would find this assertion difficult to dispute.  "Reliable" refers to "authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."Wikipedia:Reliable_sources: again you will find that each of the articles referenced is from a source widely regarded as authoritative: Fortune Magazine is a national business publication with readership near 4 millionhttp://www.timeinc.net/fortune/mediakit/businessandfinance/fortune/index.html, Fast Company is a national business and entrepreneurship publication, Consulting magazine is an industry standard, published since 1970 and Vault is a recognized leader in the production of career guides.  I would find the assertion that the sources referenced are "trustworthy or authoritative" difficult to dispute.  "Independence" "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject."Wikipedia:Notability.  To my knowledge, none of the sources cited for facts or used to assert the topic's notability are in any way affiliated with Katzenbach Partners, excepting the company web site which is cited to reference the firm's stated mission.  To this end, this topic is within both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia notability guidelines, both generally and as specified for organizations and companies.  Kindly instruct me as to the proper process for removing the  tag from this page.
* I understand that this article may still require work to meet the high standards of Wikipedia.  For this reason, I suggest that the  tag remain attached to the topic until further additions and/or modifications can be made.  I have, however, clearly asserted this topic's notability and refuted your assertion that I have a conflict of interest; to this end I firmly believe that both the  and  tags should be promptly removed.
Thank you for your contributions to this topic.
::Given your assertion that you have no connection to the company and with no evidence to the contrary, I will remove the  tag. The notability warning will remain for now; this is a relatively low-level warning that merely says, "There are problems here," but does not initiate any deletion process on its own. You've already set forth what needs to be done to bring the article up to standards, and I agree. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Realkyhick 

message: Kaustint 23:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Katzenbach Partners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518124412/http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/93/consultant-fasttake.html to http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/93/consultant-fasttake.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified