Talk:Cambrian House

Why this article was added

I have chosen to WP:BB by taking a first stab at an article on this company. I believe it meets the test for notability according to WP:CORP item 1, specifically:

A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria:

The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations² except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the company or corporation talks about itself, and advertising for the company. ¹
  - Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories.

Cambrian House has been discussed, primarily in relation to crowdsourcing in a variety of media including: CBC Radio - The Current [[1]], TechDigest [[2]], Mashable [[3]], and of course plenty of noise in the blogger community [[4]]

Apparently there is a Harvard case study about the company as well, though I don't have a source on this one. Digiterata 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Response

This article was originally tagged for speedy delete by 152.91.9.144 I have posted the following response to that IP below 152.91.9.144:Talk

Hi 152.91.9.144, I'm wondering why you chose to tag this article as Speedy Delete even after I carefully added notability justification on Talk:Cambrian_House Could you please explain what you feel is non-notable? I noticed that the previous post on your talk page references 5000 users as a rough guideline. According to the Cambrian House site, they currently have in the range of 3500 ideas submitted by a community of 8000+ users. Let me know what should be included in order to meet notability criteria, please. Digiterata 07:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:N:

"A topic can fail to satisfy the criteria because there are insufficient reliable published sources independent of the subject. Without such sources, a proper encyclopedia article cannot be built at all. Such articles are usually nominated for deletion, via Proposed Deletion, Articles for Deletion, or (for articles about a non-notable person, group, band, company, club, or website that does not even assert the notability of the topic) Speedy Deletion."

Anyone else with feedback on whether or not this article on Cambrian House meets the test for notability? Digiterata 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. (I moved a section of your comments slightly, to make it clear that the last quote from Notability was added by you.) The issue is mostly about the reliability of sources when it comes to a demonstration of notability. The best way to proceed would be to add the citations from the top of this page into the article (the guidelines on citation and using footnotes will help) and then throw it open to the crowd via an article for deletion debate.
152.91.9.144 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ch logo.gif

Image:Ch logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

glory points, cambros

no mention of glory points or cambros? --Emesee (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cambrian House. 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/20061209232550/http://www.cambrianhouse.com:80/ to http://www.cambrianhouse.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]