User talk:Stesmo/Archive 2

John

My edit on Chris Kramer was fine and original I'm a friend from his childhood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1934john1944 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 1934john1944. One of Wikipedia's core content policies is No Original Research. This means you need to provide reliable, third-party, published sources for your edits there, especially with Biographies of living persons (BLP). From the BLP page:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Thanks for bringing this to my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chasestone

Hi I do not understand why my edit on water damage was not of good quality. I am not spamming as you said in your reply. Please let me know how I can resolve this. Thanks, ChaseChasestone (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chasestone. I removed the link because it was to a company that does water damage mitigation. The link itself contains no advertising, so perhaps it should have stayed. Do you have another link that isn't going to a company that might not benefit from being linked to from Wikipedia? Stesmo (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I just signed up today, found this water damage article, saw the dead link and went to the archive to see the original article and google a portion of it and found this article. I am in no way advertising or spamming anything??? Also how could a company benefit from being linked to wikipedia? Benefit from what exactly? 24.131.61.49 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's awesome that you fixed the dead link. Please don't let my revert discourage you from editing Wikipedia. While patrolling for vandalism/spam, I came across your edit today and it appeared to be WP:LINKSPAM. I may have been too hasty in reverting your edit and I apologize for that. As to how could a company benefit from being being linked to by Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Spam has some information on types of spam that pops up on Wikipedia. From personal experience, I remove several spam / promotional links each day while looking for vandalism. Stesmo (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay I understand some what but on the same page there is a citation pointing to http://cleanresponse.com/waterdamage.aspx which happens to be a company as you are saying above. The page returns a page not found error. So how could a page that has the same article as before and also cited the original be considered spam but a citation on the same page has a 404 response that is considered okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.61.49 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahh... That's a good point, Chasestone. I saw the cleanresponse reference immediately after I reverted your edit and replaced that promotional link four minutes later (click View History on the Water damage article to see a list of edits to that page). That cleanresponse reference wasn't OK and it should have been removed by an editor before either of us came across that page. Stesmo (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay and one last technical question... should I not edit and link to another page that has the same article as the broken link page? Or can I and my link was reverted because I am a new member/possible spammer?Chasestone (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my Talk page and having this conversation with me, Chasestone. If you find a reference on any article that is better than the one currently there, preferably a reliable, third-party, published source, that can be used to verify the facts in the article, go for it -- Be bold. If you are concerned a link or content you're adding could appear to be spam, you can review Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. As to being reverted because you're new: Even editors who have been here for a decade can have their content reverted / edited / criticized. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia where anyone can and will edit the articles. You are free to edit Wikipedia articles, even as a new account. If your edits/content fit with Wikipedia's policies and standards (see Wikipedia:Plain and simple), they are more likely to remain on Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jimmy Choo Ltd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages EMEA and Lion Capital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest question

Thanks for the information re: the Conflict of Interest (COI) on the Children’s Mercy Hospital article. In an effort to follow all guidelines, I've disclosed any affiliations on my Talk page. In addition, prior to making larger updates, we proposed edits on the Talk page prior to publishing while maintaining a neutral point of view on all updates. Please advise as to any additional recommendations or best practices that can help avoid any perceived COI. ShawnCMH (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, ShawnCMH! Actually, you're probably the most conscientious COI editor I've run into on Wikipedia. I added the tag after I noticed you were editing the Children's Mercy Hospital page, but before checking in on the Talk page. I see that you've done everything right with the process and applaud you for doing so. Stesmo (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I just blocked Stesmo leave my edits alone you already screwed Kurt Cobain over (talk · contribs). I assume you know who this is. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I'm obviously making friends, though, Closedmouth. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Upload a page?

How do i upload a page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenbee1316 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, Queenbee1316. You should check out: Wikipedia:Your first article. Stesmo (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC) thanks i will

MDLivecare is now known as MDLIVE

I am trying to correct issues with the MDLIVEcare page. It was edited by a previous employee and appears our company is closed. In all reality our company name changed to MDLIVE, dropping the care. How do I edit this page properly? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by HbryantMDLIVE (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HbryantMDLIVE. You should read Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Since you are an employee of MDLIVE, you should stick to the Talk:MDLiveCare page and not the MDLiveCare page. Add to the Talk page what you think should be added and request a page move. Anything you request should have reliable, third-party, published sources that back up the facts you'd like a non-COI editor to change. Stesmo (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Modular Building Page Edits

The previous resource cited was outdated and no longer existed, it instead redirected to www.bobvila.com. The link I cited provided a better resource. Please reconsider the removal of the resource I provided. (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)ashsickle

Hi, Ashsickle. Thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. The link you posted was to a website of a company in the Modular Construction business and appeared to be spam or a promotional link. Perhaps a better fit would be a reliable, third-party, published source instead. Stesmo (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Stesmo! New user to Wikipedia so I appreciate your feedback. Ashsickle (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Natural hazard Disclosure

Natural hazard Disclosure page. Hello is not the fact that Mr Siderman created the NHD industry worthy of an encyclopedia note? Please advise. Thanks you Steven Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbalcony (talk • contribs)

Hi, Mrbalcony. A couple points on why your edit was reverted: 1) It was in the wrong place on that page. A better place would been in the main body and not in the References section. 2) Primarily, it was removed because it included a link to the website of a business that deals in the subject, making it appear to be a promotional / SPAM link WP:SPAMMER.

That article could very well do with having a new section discussing the history of the NHD industry and the founder with reliable, third-party, published sources. Please don't let my having reverted your first attempt on that page stop you from adding content that meets Wikipedia:Core_content_policies to Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC) Ok, I understand I will get that information together. Thanks for your help.

Hello Stesmo, I was curious, The associate who told me to add the content where I did made this link below. References the" hard money loans" wiki page. We will be adding our bio of Mr Siderman and the creation of the California NHD with sources from Bloomberg, etc. I hope that will suffice. However, I was curious why the link below was somehow deemed suitable? Please explain if you have time. Regards.

   "4 Tips for Finding Commercial Hard Money Lenders?". http://www.SPAMcommercialhardmoneyloans.com. Commercial Hard Money Lenders. Retrieved 4 June 2014.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbalcony (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC) 

That link is not suitable and should be removed as being an external promotional link. Aaaaand... I've removed it. Thanks for letting me know about it! Stesmo (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Robwhite55555

Hi, I added a page called 'Joe Saxton' that you deleted. Could I retrieve what I wrote on it? I think it's a really important page and I have added some more information and sources to what I originally wrote, but don't have a copy of the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robwhite55555 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robwhite55555. I nominated your article for a speedy delete, but I do not have the ability to delete articles. The admin who agreed with the speedy delete nomination and deleted your article is Shirik (Shirik's talk page). Leave a message on his talk page and he may be able to help you with this request. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Houchin

My edit on Charlie Houchin does not have a citation. He gave me the exact verbiage to write. I work with him and need it to be changed for SEO purposes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayeshydroxphere (talk • contribs) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hayeshydroxphere. Thanks for visiting my Talk page! If you do not have a reliable, third-party, published source for information you'd like to add to a Biography of a Living Person, then you should not add that info. Please read WP:BLP for more on this. Wikipedia does not allow for original research; "he told me so" does not work at Wikipedia. So, if you want to add that information, just find a newspaper article or other reliable, third-party, published source (not a press release, not a blogpost/tweet, company page, etc.) that mentions/covers that info.

Additionally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. You may also want to review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Stesmo (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If he told me what to write, how do I site that? We started a company last year and are just now wanting to add the wiki pages for Charlie, HydroXphere and Meet Central. Please let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayeshydroxphere (talk • contribs) 22:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you saw my previous answer above... I've already included information on the type of citation you need on a Biography. To answer your question about adding wiki pages for your company and product, be aware that your company needs to meet Notability standards laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in order for the article to stay on Wikipedia. The first sentence: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". If you submit an article for a company that does not Wikipedia standards, it will probably be deleted. Now, even if the company isn't notable enough for an article, if you can find a reliable, third-party, published source that says Houchin is CEO of the company, you can still add that info (along with the valid source) to his WP:BLP article.

Even if your company is Notable, you should not be the person to create the page, as you have a Conflict of Interest (COI) as an employee/member of that company. For more info, check out I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?.Stesmo (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Histofpoetry

Please see my edits to Jennifer Bartlett (poet). Per request, I have added external references in support of statements in the article. Many. Please remove the "scheduled for deletion" notice -- thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histofpoetry (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Histofpoetry. I've removed the PROD delete notice, as you've provided a couple references. However, this article is still at risk of being nominated for deletion without reliable, third-party, published sources (e.g. not blog posts, not press releases, etc.) that help Wikipedia editors see that your subject meets Notability standards. Stesmo (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo -- thanks for your review of the article on poet Jennifer Bartlett. I'll be happy to provide anything that you think will satisfy the requirement to meet Notability standards. My problem is to figure out what might work in this context. I noted several book publications by Bartlett, and I have linked to the publishers (U of NM Press, etc....) in 3 of the 5 cases. Are these not "reliable, third-party, published sources" that verify the claim made in the article (that the books exist, JB is the author, etc....). If so, does not a rather young author with rather an extensive list of published books satisfy the "Notability" requirement. I'm not challenging you, mind you -- just trying to understand what works in this case. Thanks for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Histofpoetry (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Histofpoetry. Honestly, I tend to stay away from trying to determine how notable a Poet is. A CEO or a lawyer, I can figure that out. Poets? I'm lost. So, Your best bet would be to review Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals and see if you can provide references that would show how Bartlett is notable as per those standards. If someone comes along and feels Bartlett is not notable, it should have to go through the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process, which seeks consensus on if the page should be deleted. You'd notified on your Talk page of this and a big banner would appear at the top of the article. You and any other editors who want to pipe up would then have an opportunity to discuss if the article should be kept or not for at least 7 days. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bonjour Television

Hello Stesmo, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Bonjour Television, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Bonjour Television Network

You accidentally posted at his userpage rather than talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Anna Frodesiak. I'm usually pretty good about using the Talk pages, but failed in this case. I'll take extra care to confirm I'm on the right page. Stesmo (talk)

Texas Winter League

Hi Stesmo, I'm trying to update info on the following wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Winter_League. I noticed that you made some edits so I wanted to see if you could help me. I run the site texaswinterleague.com and we recently fell off all search engines and are no longer indexed. I'm guessing I did this when I copied info from my site and used it to update the info on Wikipedia. I figured since I wrote the content on the original site it would be alright, but I guess that's not the case. Since I'm new to updating wikipedia I was hoping you could give me some advice on the best way to update the wikipedia page with the most accurate content. Thanks! TxWinterLeague — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxWinterLeague (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TxWinterLeague. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Wikipedia and your interests may not align very well in this case. You obviously would like your league to thrive and need to drive traffic to your website and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which would like to describe your league but isn't about promoting it. Wikipedia strives for a Neutral Point-of-view and the language used to promote a company usually isn't neutral. Also, Wikipedia uses nofollow on all external links, thereby causing search engines to effectively ignore them.

You editing an article about your own league is a Conflict of Interest (COI). See Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? for more info. Non-controversial edits (Changing # of teams, official website, etc.) can usually be made without challenge, though.

Additionally, Wikipedia can't allow someone else's copyrighted material to be used, so just copy-pasting from a website won't work here. The content will be removed as soon as an editor or bot notices it. Using your own words to describe something is the way to go here.

If you have Neutral POV updates, along with reliable, third-party, published sources that can be used to verify the facts presented, place them on the Texas Winter League's Talk page. Another editor may chime in and have feedback or might make the change for you to eliminate COI issues. You can leave me a message on my Talk page requesting I stop by if no one else stops by to chat on that Talk page.

Speaking of Talk pages, please look at your Talk page: Your username breaks the Wikipedia rules. At some point, an administrator will notice and will block your account. It's best to request to change your username to something that doesn't represent a group, business, etc. before that happens.

Good luck!Stesmo (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I believe I was able to change my user name but I'm not sure. I now have to log in with my new user name, however on the Changing Username page they said the username I chose was already being used, however when I checked for availability it said it was available. In any case, thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubasteve972 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Scubasteve972. Glad to see you have a new user name. If you'd like to see the rename process, you can see it at Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#TxWinterLeague_.E2.86.92_Scubasteve972. Essentially, since someone already had created a user by that name but appeared to have done nothing with it, they changed that old name to something else and gave you the name you wanted. Oh, and when you leave a comment on a Talk page (but not while editing articles), type ~~~~ at the end of your comment to 'sign it' with your name. Like this: Stesmo (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

LendingTree

Hi Stesmo! Saw your edits on the Wikipage for LendingTree. I agree with most of them. There were a few I wanted to discuss.

it is instead a broker (NMLS #1136) and facilitates the lending services provided by its network lenders to its customers.

• The NMLS #1136 is their broker number and representative of credibility. Similar to an real estate or accountant's number. I think that could be useful. I think the additional comment stating that they facilitate lending services is not "market speak" but provides further clarification of what they actually do. There is a misconception that LendingTree processes their customer loans like QuickenLoans, but they do not. They match customers with lenders within their network.

Since being founded in 1998 LendingTree has facilitated more than 32 million loan requests. It is headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

• The 32 million loan requests is found on the boiler statements on the bottom of their latest PR Newswire releases. I will link an article soon.

During this period, LendingTree began using its tagline "When Banks Compete, You Win"

• Would like further clarification why this should be removed. It is part of LendingTree history and it is a well known tagline of the company that has gotten advertising awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msouyang (talk • contribs) 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Msouyang. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm not sure an encyclopedia needs the various license numbers of the companies personally. With a reliable, third-party published source backing the "broker" claim, I can't imagine Wikipedia readers would need the number here. It is merely decoration. As to the "facilitate lending"... 1) It's in the lead sentence for that paragraph "connects customers...". Part of the issue I saw with the removed phrase was it said the same thing twice in the first two sentences. 2) It is of course "market speak" when it explaining it to me, it went from "facilitates the lending services provided by its network lenders to its customers" to "They match customers with lenders within their network". Much more simple. And, much more obvious that it is parroting the point in the first sentence of that paragraph.

PR Newswire is not a reliable, third-party, published source. Those are press releases created by the company to present a story in a beneficial light. Nothing wrong about that, just not a reliable, third-party, published source. Absolutely you should add it back when you can find something more than a press release (or wholly reprinted press release), company website page or other first-party source.

Oh, I know that's the tagline. It's an incredibly good tagline and every time I see the LendingTree name, I hear that tagline in my head. :D However, it did not seem notable or pertinent. I'm not seeing the various eras of taglines in the article (say like at Coca-Cola#Advertising List of Coca-Cola slogans). I also saw it is included in the infobox, so I felt it wasn't needed a second time.

Thanks for stopping by! Stesmo (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

stesmo Going back and reading more of your edits I'm now curious as to why current details regarding the company were removed. It's sale of its home mortgage loan section is a major subject. http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/blog/bank_notes/2012/06/treecom-closes-sale-of-mortgage.html

Also why were its current leaders also removed? I can understand some of them being removed but why not at least keep its chief officers? Its usually considered pertinent information and executive names are included in annual financial reports

Hi, Msouyang. I didn't touch the current leaders nor did I remove info on a sale of an HML section. Another editor did, it seems. I can understand why the list of employees was removed, as it brings little value to the article or the reader. The infobox may be a better place to list a couple of the key people.

To see who is making what edits, you can visit the View History tab of any page on Wikipedia. [1], for example, will allow you to compare differences between each edit of LendingTree, as well as see who is doing the edits. Please also sign your comments on Talk pages by adding ~~~~ to the end... Like this: Stesmo (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please use talk pages

Please use user talk pages, not user pages as in User:Bonjour Television Network. Thanks. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was already mentioned above. Ok. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I made a mistake there. I'm usually pretty good about using the Talk pages, but failed in this case. Thanks for letting me know, though, Alexf.Stesmo (talk)

Error in Deletion

Thank you for taking the time to review the Canadian Business Journal's wikipedia page. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to edit the content and make it better. I understand that the page had some 404 errors and some of the information should have been edited. I just think deleting it was not the answer. I hope you would reconsider your position and recreate the CBJ page.

Is Lending Tree's press release okay http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lendingtree-reinvents-borrowers-shop-money-133000433.html, a page you have recently edited, and The Canadian Business Journal, which you've just voted to delete, is not okay to have a press release anywhere on the web because that may look like CBJ was advertising.

The second CNBC article looks like an advertorial. Just look at the way it was written. It was written by Mr. Steve Goldberg. http://www.cnbc.com/id/101880924#

Here is a direct quote from Mr. Goldberg's linkedin.com profile page http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevegoldbergmedia, "A brand journalist providing editorial and writing services for corporate and media clients. Concept development, research, writing and editing of effective marketing, advertising and public relations copy. Creative collaboration with art directors, graphic artists, video production units."

The third "notable" reference is from lending tree's own website. https://www.lendingtree.com/about/the-lendingtree-story

The CBJ was the first all-digital Canadian publication to qualify and be audited by BPA Worldwide.

http://www.bpaww.com/Bpaww_com/HTML/about_bpa/industry_news/2009/Canadian%20Business%20Journal%20first%20digital%20only%20BPA%20Member.html

This press release was not issued the CBJ. It was by BPA Worldwide. This was a notable accomplishment at a time when publications of all sorts were being forced to close down, the Canadian Business Journal found a new way of publishing and developed a program to be audited by BPA Worldwide.

Here are a couple of other mentions;

This is from Arlene Dickinson's website. http://arlenedickinson.com/news/

Here is one from the Saskatchewan Party's website. http://saskparty.com/index.php?pageid=mlas&mla=brad-wall

The Canadian Business Journal is a monthly business journal based in Mississauga, Canada. If you talk to people in the business community in Canada, they would tell you that they know about CBJ. It was started in November of 2008. In these past six years, the CBJ has done countless interviews of Politicians and Business Leaders.

Here are some links to the recent publications;

September 2014 issue - http://www.cbj.ca/EMAG/2014/Sep/CBJ.php CBJ interviewed the Green Party of Canada's leader, Elizabeth May.

March 2014 issue - http://www.cbj.ca/EMAG/2014/Mar/CBJ.php CBJ interviewed the CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada, Dianne Craig.

February 2014 issue - http://www.cbj.ca/EMAG/2014/Feb/CBJ.php CBJ interviewed Google Canada's Managing Director, Chris O'Neill.

I know you are a volunteer and I am not getting paid to write this as well. Maybe you are not from Canada and that makes it difficult for you to understand the Canadian Business Journal. Meanwhile, you have seen the TV ads by Lending Tree and that makes it okay. I have seen those ads as well. I wouldn't want you to delete the Lending Tree page. Maybe, you can find the time to look up some other references to make the article better. That is the whole point of Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.55.170 (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

——————————————

Hello, 216.81.55.170. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I originally nominated the CBJ page for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Canadian_Business_Journal) because I could not see how CBJ fit Wikipedia's definition of Notable: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."

I came to this conclusion in part because the sources on the page and in part because of searches I performed outside of Wikipedia. While editing the article and visiting the sources on the page in order to verify claims, I noticed the references weren't from "reliable, independent secondary sources", but standard "we're a business" type links like BBB, etc. When I went to search outside of Wikipedia, I found links to the CBJ, but not *about* the CBJ. And, the links to the CBJ weren't independent secondary sources, but people, companies and towns pointing to a very favorable article about them in the CBJ, all using very similar language. I not only could not find "significant coverage", I couldn't find "coverage" where CBJ was the subject.

At this point, it wasn't a matter of being able to fix links or edit the language of the article to make it better. If the company isn't notable, then there's little a Wikipedia editor can do to make the company more notable.

So, I nominated the article for Deletion on the 21st of August. For nearly a month, any editor could comment and discuss their thoughts on if this article should remain on Wikipedia. These editors would read the article, check out the references and perform their own searches. After reading the discussion, an administrator came to the conclusion that the consensus was that the article should not be on Wikipedia and they then removed it.

There is no judgement about the quality of the CBJ or anyone involved with it. It is solely "Does this company meet the requirements and standards of Wikipedia in order to have an article about it". If you look through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion's Category:AfD_debates, you'll see over 800 discussions about removing articles.

As to the LendingTree vs. CBJ. I would not nominate LendingTree for Deletion for Notability. It's not just because I've seen ads for it, it's because I've also seen articles about that company in newspapers, magazines, etc. over the last decade or so. A quick search shows it easily meets the definition of Notable above and at Notable.

If you look at the LendingTree page, you'll notice the tag at the top of the page: PrimarySources. Another editor has already pointed out that the LendingTree article lacks reliable, third-party, published sources. I was not editing that page to update references. I was looking at that article to patrol a recent edit and while there I removed promotional material, tightened up the language to make it more readable and requested another editor to find reliable, third-party references to back up claims made on that page (aka citation needed). Stesmo (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

——————————————

Thank you for your quick reply. Like myself, I know you must be busy with your day job or had something better to do than to have this discussion out in the open. There is no argument about the BBB link and I agree it should not have been there and some other information that should have read better. I have seen parts of the discussion, some editors were even complaining about the 404s, as if it were the fault of the listed organization and it should be penalized for it. I know the definition of Notable as per Wikipedia. The term significant is a subjective term or at least open to interpretation. I think if you strictly go by this definition, most of the content on Wikipedia will have to be deleted. I think having little information about an entity or a subject is better than having no information at all. I thought that the BPA Worldwide mention was notable. http://www.bpaww.com/Bpaww_com/HTML/about_bpa/industry_news/2009/Canadian%20Business%20Journal%20first%20digital%20only%20BPA%20Member.html

Again, you wouldn't recommend Lending Tree for deletion, because in your opinion, the multimillion dollar promotional engine has railroaded Lending Tree to the subjective notability. Therefore, their self-promotion is not self-promotion. Lending Tree is nothing more than a Large Corporation. I would hate to think that in the eyes of Wikipedia notability=power+money. And I still wouldn't want you to delete the Lending Tree article. We can all edit the article and make it better. Wiki = We Key = We are the Key. For a company to have an article, being notable is not the only requirement. You can find that maybe the Lending Tree article also has a problem with neutrality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11

Here is a direct quote from the Lending Tree's entry, "LendingTree is an online lending exchange that connects consumers with multiple lenders, banks, and credit partners whom compete for business." Their coverage over the last decade has mainly been the articles I have pointed out above.

For an article to be suitable for Wikipedia, along with Notability, there are two other considerations like Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Notability

Very few companies and corporations are suitable for inclusion into Wikipedia. There are millions of companies in the world but less than one-tenth of one percent of these companies are notable enough to be considered for inclusion into Wikipedia.

In order to be included in Wikipedia, the company must be:

   the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR
   listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR
   used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.

If you are writing about a product or service of a company, that product or service must:

   have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company offering the product or service, OR
   be so well-known that its trademark has suffered from genericization.

I don't think Lending Tree meets the above requirement. I am not sure why I am still talking about Lending Tree. Lending Tree is a Business and CBJ is a publication. When I decided to post on your talk page, another user had just posted about Lending Tree right above where I was going to post and it was something you had recently edited. In my opinion, instead of waiting for others to do the edits, you should have tried to edit the Canadian Business Journal entry yourself rather than deleting the information. I think deleting the information should be the very last course of action. The Canadian Business Journal is a well-respected, a very well known, and a notable business journal in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.55.170 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

——————————————

I did edit CBJ to improve the article. But, there's nothing I could edit in the article to make CBJ "...the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.". It took a month of open, public participation in the article for Deletion discussion before the admin decided to delete the article. Anyone could pipe up during that discussion and say Keep, Comment or Delete and add their reasoning to sway consensus. You could have as well. The CBJ article could have been edited during the discussion to add references that showed Notability for a Wikipedia article that weren't found by other editors during their searches. There appear to be three resolutions to an AfD: Keep, No Consensus or Delete. So far, two of the articles I've nominated via AfD have been kept due to Keep or No Consensus due to the discussion; Deleting is not the default there.

If you believe that the LendingTree article does not meet Wikipedia's standards/policies for an article, you can absolutely start the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process on it. I would be surprised to see it succeed as I believe LendingTree "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." You can also take to the Talk page for LendingTree and raise your points there. You can edit the LendingTree article to remove things that violate Wikipedia standards/policies and/or improve upon the article. There are many different ways you can contribute if you are here to build an encyclopedia. Be Bold!

Above, you link to the Speedy Delete G11 category. I don't believe CBJ and LendingTree would have met the Speedy Delete category G11 (or any category, really) based on the text in that link. Speedy Deletes, in my experience, have to super-blatantly meet the criteria for the listed category with no doubt about it or the Speedy Delete will be denied by an admin.

I don't make Wikipedia policy. There are many policy pages and essays about Wikipedia policy. There are places to ask questions about Wikipedia policy like Wikipedia:Teahouse or through Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment and the various Talk pages, etc. Since this is all consensus-based, I'm sure there are avenues to get Wikipedia policies changed. I am but a very small cog in the Wikipedia machine. I not only don't make the policies, I (like you and the vast majority of editors) the decisions I make are all subject to discussion, reverting and/or consensus. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

——————————————

    "...the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." 

BPA Worldwide's reference was independent, reliable and significant. http://www.bpaww.com/Bpaww_com/HTML/about_bpa/industry_news/2009/Canadian%20Business%20Journal%20first%20digital%20only%20BPA%20Member.html

    "It took a month of open, public participation in the article for Deletion discussion before the admin decided to delete the article. Anyone could pipe up during that discussion and say Keep, Comment or Delete and add their reasoning to sway consensus."

The assumption here is that just because you'd leave a discussion open for 30 days, people would somehow find the time or care enough to make edits or vote to keep or delete. Having said that, I am sure there are some Wikipedia entries that are fiercely debated. However most changes will not be contested and probably would go unnoticed until the next time someone just happened to stumble upon the original article they had once viewed on Wikipedia.

You are probably not from Canada and certainly not from the publishing industry (Newspapers & Magazines), because you have not once acknowledged the BPA Worldwide reference. In 2009, The Canadian Business Journal accomplished something that had not been done in the history of the publishing industry.

Again in my opinion, CBJ had no more and no less notable than most Wikipedia articles. At least, CBJ's reference was more honest and there was no attempt on their part to skew the results either way by paying business writers or bloggers to post stories about CBJ. Lending Tree on the other hand has clearly done that. They even went as far as listing their own website as a independent, reliable,and significant third party coverage. And you were okay with that, because you have heard of Lending Tree. This sort of human factor creates an unfair bias against smaller yet notable companies and organizations. I think someone should submit CBJ's article to be created again. Meanwhile, it will be helpful to remove it from the Wikipedia's List of Canadian magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.55.170 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)