Talk:Salesforce Marketing Cloud/Archives/2013
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Introduction
I'm working with ExactTarget to help them improve and maintain this article following COI best practices. The current article looks like a bit of a jumbled mess of prior COI editing (albeit I presume in good faith). It includes a lot of trivial awards, customer lists, excessive executive lists, excessive external links, etc.. I noticed that many of the articles listed under the "Similar companies" section have an identical list on their page and many of those articles also show signs of COI editing.
I've prepared a cleaned up, more neutral, better sourced and up-to-date article for consideration at:
I was hoping an impartial editor would consider my work and - if the current article was written by ExactTarget - accept my apologies that COI best practices were not followed. Hopefully putting together an excellent and neutral piece will atone. CorporateM (Talk) 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't compare and contrast to see which are gone, but I noticed that the draft has 5 less references. Do you know which ones are gone / why? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I usually start from scratch, only checking the current article for any salvageable material/sources, at least in cases where the current article does not provide a good starting point. But I started looking through about half of the sources just now in order to answer your question and I noticed several blogs, broken links, articles that do not actually mention the company, stuff like Lead 411 and one link to the Adobe newsroom. Here is one source that is a press release. I'd gander I only used a few of the current article's sources that were up to Wikipedia's standards. CorporateM (Talk) 03:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK thanks. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I usually start from scratch, only checking the current article for any salvageable material/sources, at least in cases where the current article does not provide a good starting point. But I started looking through about half of the sources just now in order to answer your question and I noticed several blogs, broken links, articles that do not actually mention the company, stuff like Lead 411 and one link to the Adobe newsroom. Here is one source that is a press release. I'd gander I only used a few of the current article's sources that were up to Wikipedia's standards. CorporateM (Talk) 03:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)