User talk:BayBridge

Welcome to Wikipedia, BayBridge, and thanks for your contributions. I've left a reply to your message on the request for feedback page.

Here are some general pages that you might find useful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
Manual of Style
Ask a question
The most important requirements for articles: notability, verifiability, and neutral point of view.

If you need any help, you can contact me at my talk page (by clicking on "talk" in my signature).--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:BayBridge/Coffee Express Co. has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co., this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on the AfC space

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co.. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I was reviewing your article and I have a few recommendations for you. The first is that you need to find better sources for notability. Generally company webpages are not considered to be reliable sources since they are connected to the company. The link to the website of the Coffee Express's friend's restraunt would not be considered a reliable source for that same reason, especially because he has a vested interest in seeing CE do well. It's considered to be a conflict of interest. I also want to mention that links to pages outlining contest details does not count as a reliable source, especially when they do not talk about the company at all. Reliable sources are generally considered to be second party articles that discusses the company. Brief mentions, pictures, or vanity/promotional pieces are not really considered to be reliable sources. I also notice that you are part of a marketing company, so I have to ask: are you representing Coffee Express in any way, shape, or form? Are you a friend, family member, or employee of the company? If the answer to any of these is yes or close to it, I highly recommend checking out WP:COI. There's no rule that says that you absolutely cannot add a page but you have to be very careful that it doesn't turn into a page that's predominantly advertising in nature and/or non-neutral. I also highly recommend that you read WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CORP to see what is considered reliable sources and notability requirements for a company. This is a good start but you really need to work on finding reliable sources. This just isn't ready at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Reply

Hi! Just dropping a note back to you! I'm glad to hear you're not doing this because you were paid to- that makes it a lot easier to do all of this. Tiptoeing around COI isn't very much fun, I admit. I'm going to go through the list of the links you provided and rate each one:

'Link 1:If there was a way to view the article at this link: [1], that might count as a good source depending on what was in it. The biggie would be whether or not Coffee Express was a brief mention or was a major focus of the piece. If it's just mentioned as a place to get coffee and a participant in National Coffee Day, then it wouldn't be considered a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Now a bit of a warning is that even if it does go into detail about CE, if the only version of the article available is behind a paywall, we can't use it, unfortunately.

Hi - Thanks so much for your feedback. I found a lot of articles that are behind a paywall - is there any way to access these? Also, at the bottom of your notes here, you say that clippings would work - how do I go about making them accessible, as links?

Links 2, 3, 4 These direct to the company's website and should be avoided as references, as far as the WP:RS guide goes about. It'd probably be better as an external link on the bottom. The same goes for link 4. The biggest problem with using company pages as a resource is that it's hard to prove that they're 100% accurate. Sometimes companies like to put a little spin on their histories to make it more interesting or funny (not that there's anything wrong with that), so it's hard to weed through which is genuine and which isn't. That's really the only big problem with this. If we had even one tiny source to back this up, it wouldn't be an issue.

- I will find better links for 2 & 3 which are the company website, but link 4 is to a history of the bar that he no longer owns - it was written by a third party local historian. Is there a way to keep it in?

Link 5: This one is sort of hard. It does back up the stuff in the previous links, but it's sort of an advertising piece and is only a brief mention, which makes it more of a trivial source. It'd be good with strong reliable sources, but not as a source by itself.

Link 6: This shows up as bandwidth exceeded both times I clicked on it.

Link 7: The video on this page doesn't play, but it's also on youtube which is sort of a no-no here on Wikipedia because all content on Youtube is user generated. It's not an official news video ala CNN or a local major news channel, so it's not really counted as a reliable source.

Link 8: The big issue with this is that it's a blog and that the event mentioned is really only of local importance. It's still a little too new to be considered an event or award notable enough to give notability.

Link 9 & 10: These are just links to another company and don't help provide notability for the company. Cup of Excellence might be notable, but notability isn't inherited. It's not an exclusive status (meaning that only 2-3 people can get it), so it doesn't really count as giving notability. It also doesn't mention the company at all, which is another biggie about these. If there was a news article that mentioned CE getting this award and focused on the company, then it could possibly be considered a notable source even though the award isn't all that notable per Wikipedia guidelines.

Link 11 & 12: These just show that the company exists and doesn't really go into any detail. These would be considered trivial links at best and doesn't show notability.

I know that you've got to be frustrated since I essentially tore apart every link. It's actually a little tough to find stuff that's considered reliable sources for anything that isn't a huge Starbucks-esque corporation, which is usually why most articles are either deleted or declined on here: they couldn't find the reliable sources to back up the article's claims. I did a bit of a search but couldn't find anything that Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. What I can recommend is that you keep working on the article and keep looking for sources. It's possible that there might be some sources out there that might not have made it onto the internet, so if you live local to the company it would be worth stopping in and asking if they have any old newspaper clippings. I have to admit that sometimes I get a little irritated with the whole "reliable source" qualifications too since I've occasionally wanted to add articles but couldn't because I couldn't find the sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Adding sources

Hmm... the newspaper clippings, do they have anything on them that signify the date or newspaper that it ran in? If you have that, then you can use the following guidelines for quoting it:

Citations for newspaper articles typically include the name of the newspaper (in italics), the date of publication, the byline (author's name) if any, the title of the article (within quotation marks), and the city of publication if not included in the name of the newspaper. Page number(s) are optional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Thank you. So I don't have to link to a copy of the article, just provide a thorough reference? BayBridge (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my latest Article for Creation: Coffee Express Co.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hi, I'm looking for a review on my Article for Creation: Coffee Express Co. TokyoGirl79 was editing but I haven't heard a response in a few weeks. I have made revisions per the editor's feedback, and added credible references. I appreciate any further feedback, and hope to have my article published soon. Thanks! BayBridge (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow the instructions at WT:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co. to resubmit and request another review. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co..
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sionk (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co. concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co., a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Coffee Express Co.

Hello BayBridge. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Coffee Express Co..

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Coffee Express Co.}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]