Talk:Pricelock

This company is huge for its industry. My research (and professor, whom I consider an expert) was reviewed prior to posting as acceptable for academic purposes, yet of 14 references, the post now only has 8. Consider that they spoke at a NAFTA conference. No matter your opinion, for this industry, that is a big deal (see slides at http://www.nafa.org/downloads/filedownload.cfm?file=%5CIE_Handouts%5C2011%5C49_Dunman_FuelTrends_HowTheyImpactYourBusiness.pdf).

I will add some of the references I used that were deleted as external links so you can ascertain whether they would be useful to the post's credibility / notability. Cultpopster (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I have recently been researching this subject area for school and came upon this company. I have created material to post with citations, based on my research. Please let me know if you have any issues with what I post - it could impact my grades! :)

Cultpopster (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

User talk:Hardenpartners is a significant contributor to the article, though Google shows that "Harden Partners" is also a professional Public Relations firm. WP:COI applies. Swim900 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

There were several external links added by Cultpopster which I have removed from the article. Some of them were press releases, and others were original research. Of those remaining, they likely could be used as cited references, if appropriate, and I am including those here in case an editor would like to draw upon them as a citation for the article. They are not appropriate as external links, but could potentially be used as citations. Here they are:

ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]