User talk:CorporateM/Archive 18

Trafigura - primary sources, POV pushers, etc

Hi, with regard to your response here, I have to say I think you might be a little overzealous when it comes to primary sources. I noticed a comment from you a while back on SmartSE’s talk page about how “every POV pusher you’ve had to fend off was trying to justify a primary source to support their opinions”. I don't think (and you may well agree) that bad faith is only reason for that, but firstly allow me one more go at justifying this one... The Trafigura bond prospectus is unquestionably a primary source; I’ve never suggested otherwise. I pointed out a while ago that it’s SmartSE’s view that it’s reliable, citing the following: “The information contained in this Offering Circular to the best of its knowledge is in accordance with the facts and contains no omission likely to affect its import.” Perhaps you take a similar view and would have excluded it altogether if you weren’t sufficiently convinced by it, if so that’s fine, but in the absence of a secondary source, should important information on a neutral subject (such as some detail on what the company actually trades in terms of oil products) be excluded when that information is available and when no reasonable person would doubt its accuracy? Or to frame the question slightly differently, should a company be penalised for being media-shy? Many major organisations avoid publicity as we all know, the upshot being that when something goes wrong it becomes the thing they’re ‘known for’. As a result their Wikipedia pages can very easily turn into little more than accounts of their wrongdoings and become very vulnerable to POV pushers of the activist persuasion. COI editing that's overly dependent on primary sources is then the only recourse. HOgilvy (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I only skimmed your post above, but right off the bat, you will just never find me sympathetic to extensive use of primary sources on any page, anywhere, for any reason. Primary sources are not forbidden, but they are suppose to be used with caution and not be the primary basis for constructing entire sections of an article. Generally speaking using primary sources as a major content source occurs when secondary sources conflict with an editor's point-of-view of what the article should focus on. This is because primary sources can be found to support any desired overall tone of a page, whether it's flooding it with lawsuits or awards and philanthropy.

It is not constructive for you to continue attempting to persuade me. Keep in context that I've literally seen hundreds of POV pushers (including most COIs) make every argument possible to support their use of primary sources. I don't use "POV pushers" as a derogatory term, but rather any editor with a strong opinion or agenda can fall into this category accidentaly, even if they didn't mean to and it is not exclusive from the principles of AGF. CorporateM (Talk) 15:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I get that, and perhaps you misread me – this goes way beyond this particular article for me. I'm interested in your take on what I see as a problem: when an organisation is media-shy, articles can end up skewed (not necessarily POV, just unbalanced in terms of emphasis) due to Wikipedia's insistence that secondary sources are to be preferred. HOgilvy (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If the sources really are skewed, than they are probably not reliable, though in some circumstance bias sources are usable. It is not an unreasonable insistence to avoid primary sources, rather heavy reliance on primary sources constitutes original reporting, which just isn't what Wikipedia is. CorporateM (Talk) 18:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not an unreasonable insistence to avoid primary sources, quite the opposite, and I'm not talking about skewed sources but where an individual or organisation is notable beyond certain issues or events yet the body of secondary sources is skewed towards those issues or events. Wikipedia couldn't and shouldn't ever rely on original reporting, but there are cases where it can't provide much more than a reflection of the available media coverage. The logic is then that the media has given us everything we need to know. HOgilvy (talk) 19:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The media is one of the lowest quality sources available. They cover speculation, gossip and predictions, whereas in almost all cases we do not, even if sourced. They write in a sensational manner and often do not do a very good job checking their facts, which is the core requirement for being a reliable source. However, in most smaller articles, like those on individual companies, it's all we have to work with.

Here's an example of what a real quality source looks like. I wrote the article on History of public relations and brought it up to GA. I discovered that Scott Cutlip was by far the most renown and frequently cited historian on the field of PR and has authored several academic books on the subject. He is the single most credible source of information on the topic. Sometimes this exists for a company to. Qualcomm is a client of mine and "The Qualcomm Equation" is a heavily cited book on their corporate history, that is by far the single most comprehensive and credible source on them and certainly a better source than press.

To say that the media is bias and you therefore need primary sources to balance that reeks of the kind of POV pushing I was referring to. The media does not have the same emphasis you would like, so you would like to use primary sources to create an article that is neutral from your perspective. However, we do use primary sources for corporate structure (for example), because it's generally seen as something of encyclopedic significance that the media doesn't cover. (example) We also generally don't create articles about people or companies that are only known for one single event. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the media we're talking about in this case is biased, not hopelessly anyway. It's the proportion of coverage I'm thinking of. I like to think my perspective is neutral! I've got a couple more things to raise in due course on this article – an updated Corporate Structure section (based on a bond prospectus from February this year) and a couple of points on the Cote d'Ivoire section (no primary sources!). I know you said you don't generally wade into to detail but you're the only one who's shown an interest in this article for some months now. If it's okay to ping you I'd be really grateful. Anyway, these are two great articles – particularly enjoyed the history of PR. I remember you invited me to contribute to it at one point and I would have liked to but I can't really use this account for anything outside my role. I would like to do some voluntary editing though and I remember you saying the community prefers it, which stands to reason. Am I right in thinking you can have more than one account as long as it's clear they're both yours? Thanks. HOgilvy (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Generally it's considered acceptable practice if you'd prefer to have one account for volunteer editing and another for the PR stuff, so long as each account discloses the relation to the other and they don't both contribute to the same pages. Personally, I find this approach confusing and unnecessary, but a lot of folks feel the opposite way; that it helps more clearly distinguish which contributions are done with a financial connection. CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

McKinsey draft

Thanks for the talk page notice. I was thinking let's give it six days? (I just pulled that number out of my hat). If no comments or activity by then I'll go ahead and paste the draft. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@user:FreeRangeFrog. Maybe this is excessive over-analyzation, but I think 7 days is an ideal minimum wait time, as to give any editors that only login once a week on their day off an opportunity to chime in. That is in cases like this where there is no particular urgency (except possibly for some BLP problems) and it is known that a particular editor will be interested in the changes.

Thanks for taking a look! I know this particular article is steeped in complex business topics that not many editors have an interest in. I miss North9000, because he/she was always interested in every topic, so it wasn't a drag for them to jump into random articles on subjects most would consider un-interesting. I'm excited to finally get this GA-nominated after two years of incremental improvements. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 48, 2014)

A beach on the island of San Andrés, a tourist destination in the Caribbean Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Tourism in the Caribbean Previous selections: Military technology • Everyday life Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) •

Response to current body article

Comment: The draft article's sources seem really ambiguous/vague. I'm not sure what publications they are from and cannot verify whether the sources actually exist, support the article content, and validate the article-subject meets our requirements for a page. Can you provide more information about the citations? CorporateM (Talk) 01:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are more references http://blogs.klinegroup.com/2014/10/16/shedding-some-light-on-beauty-safety-challenges-for-at-home-beauty-devices-marketers/ http://www.home-use-device.com/fileadmin/user_upload/news/PNA_2_2_20_25_analysis.pdf http://www.home-use-device.com/fileadmin/user_upload/news/PME_4_2_analysisNEW.pdf Kleine & Company, Beauty Devices Global Market analyses and Opportunities 2012. http://www.klinegroup.com/reports/brochures/y705b/brochure.pdfAndrew Mcdougal, Cosmeticsdesign.com June 2013 http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Market-Trends/Market-for-at-home-skin-care-devices-set-to-boom Mintel/Toluna, October 2011 (Europe) and January 2012 (US) http://www.mintel.com/blog/beauty-market-news/beauty-device-market-ingredients-boost-cellular-energy Mintel (Beauty – US – Devices March 2013) http://reports.mintel.com/display/637828/# Lucy Whitehouse (Never too Old for Technology: Anti Aging driving US Devices) March 2014 http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Market-Trends/Never-too-old-for-technology-anti-aging-driving-US-beauty-devices

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentBody (talk • contribs) 11:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Edelman Logo Color.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Edelman Logo Color.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2014)

The Mexico–United States border spans six Mexican states and four U.S. states, with a total length of 3,145 km (1,954 mi). Hello, CorporateM. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Mexico–United States border Previous selections: Tourism in the Caribbean • Military technology Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC) •

Your GA nomination of James T. Butts, Jr.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article James T. Butts, Jr. you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @SNUGGUMS! That one has been in the GA review queue for quite some time. You may have noticed on the Talk page, but in case you didn't, I wanted to make sure you knew I had a potential conflict of interest. CorporateM (Talk) 00:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. COI or not, those don't affect whether I pass or fail nominations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of James T. Butts, Jr.

The article James T. Butts, Jr. you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:James T. Butts, Jr. for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael Feldman (consultant)

I have just posted a comment on the AfD for Michael Feldman (consultant). Next time I hope you'll reach out to me first with any concerns. I'd have been only too happy to discuss the topic and provide additional sources that would have avoided an unnecessary deletion debate. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am cleaning up a few dozens articles in Category:American public relations people along these lines. I didn't know you were the author. As you know, I try to avoid such articles, as I did with Leslie Bradshaw (another strong AfD candidate in the category). I am surprised you are responsible for some of them. It is not a productive use of my time (among other reasons), since having an experienced advocate defending a page like that makes it almost impossible to actually delete and others could be eliminated with ease. CorporateM (Talk) 04:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

APCO Worldwide

Making a personal note to add improving this page to my To Do list. Appears to focus almost exclusively on controversial topics. CorporateM (Talk) 13:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Noel Lee (executive)

The article Noel Lee (executive) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Noel Lee (executive) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

James Jordan (publicist)

James Jordan (publicist) is still dead. So BLP does not apply. Go to AfD if you wish. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've sent it to AfD rather than prod. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Marisara Pont Marchese

Thanks for alerting me to the need of improving this biography. She not only served as SoS/Lt. Governor and Acting Governor of Puerto Rico but was the only one whose recess appointment ended when denied legislative confirmation, a unique moment in PR's political history.Pr4ever (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sig Mejdal

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sig Mejdal you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vile-eight -- Vile-eight (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

This is my first GA review. I know you are familiar with the process so if you think I'm being unfair on anything feel free to point it out. Off of initial impressions of the criteria, I'm inclined to pass but I will work through the details as I move along. Best, Vile-eight (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Vile-eight Sure thing. It's a small/simple article, so a perfect place to get started with GA reviewing. CorporateM (Talk) 21:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Apple specialists

This has been a regret for me, that long ago I spent energy working on an article on an actual Apple marketing program which still appears to exist and which includes many of the best independent retailers in the business, but despite the test of time hasn't produced a single independent reliable source that I can find. I made the effort assuming that I'd eventually find sources. The page has languished because of the lack of cite-able material. Several COI editors have contributed. If this can't be sourced, I'd support deletion, though it's an article on which I once spent some energy. (Note: this page seems to indicate the text hasn't been changed in forever, PowerBook G4's being discontinued almost 9 years ago.) The category might also deserve discussion, as might the template. Of the pages on businesses, many of those should remain, based on sourcing. Tekserve has the sourcing to become quite a page. BusterD (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@user:BusterD I noticed that user:DGG deleted the PROD and asked that I do a search for sources to ascertain notability for an AfD, rather than deleting it as OR. I figured searches for "Apple Specialist" would bring up so much stuff related to the combination of two english words, as oppose to the actual title, I wasn't sure how productive doing searches would be. So I settled for cleaning up the promotional aspects of it. CorporateM (Talk) 02:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it does indeed exist [1]--but some of the product examples on their web site are very much non-current , eg. "Your brand new PowerBook G4" What I had in mind was checking the relevant magazines for the period. Or their annual reports. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wonder about their significance of Apple Specialist when their web site is still promoting OS X Lion, a 2011 release. Maybe there's a reason for the lack of third-party attention. The web site at http://applespecialist.com is run by the Apple Specialist Marketing Corp of Elgin, IL. This entity is not part of Apple and is distinct from Apple's own Apple Specialist program. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Because their website is obviously outdated I don't think trivializes their historical significance, however it does gives us a timeline (2011) to check Apple's annual reports for those years; if it was significant to them, it should be at least mentioned there. CorporateM (Talk) 14:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. From the looks of it most resellers went out of business after Apple launched its own chain of retail stores. It is probably a notable subject, but then I PROD' for OR, as oppose to notability. At this point it's probably best left alone until someone adds sources. CorporateM (Talk) 14:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Crenshaw Communications

Hi! I left a comment on the Crenshaw Communications page regarding possible deletion. Perhaps we can discuss with the rest of the editors? Thank you! Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Left another comment on the page! Techieguy2012 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Studio One page

Hello, I see that after I did a major edit to Studio One (company) wiki page, you have taken out most of what I had entered to enrich the page. Could you please explain why you deleted so much of my work? AEF (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Marcia

The stuff I reverted included "an award-winning, full-service" and lots of primary sources about how its a "long-standing" member of an organization, awards-spam, press releases and similar promotion. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

So, if I take out some of the puffery language, and self-promotion, will that suffice?AEF (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

If you are affiliated with the organization, you are very strongly discouraged from contributing to the article, because overwhelmingly such individuals are unable to edit neutrally. However, if there are errors or other problems, you should point them out on the Talk page, ping me, and I will fix any genuine errors/etc. promptly. You can also propose edits on the Talk page and I can provide some guidance on what they would need to be acceptable, however this also tends to be a frustrating process filled with rejection and failure, merely because someone affiliated with the article-subject has a conflict of interest that skews their judgement on neutral content and acceptable sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not an employee of Studio One, so I do feel as though I can be objective. I can take out some of the puffery and resubmit as a more neutral company history. I'm a bit new to this, so your help is appreciated. AEF (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Marcia

If you are not affiliated with them, than you should just edit the article again. If it's still promotional, I may revert again, but this is just a part of the editorial process. At that point, we should discuss it on the Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 15:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paxata

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paxata you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 23W -- 23W (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello CorporateM, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Nestlé Purina PetCare

Hi - I just provided input on your GA nom of here. Really excellent work. There are just a few minor changes. Please ping me if you have questions or if you make the changes and are ready for it to be passed as I'm unlikely to check it again without a reminder. DOCUMENT★ERROR 08:19, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Everything looked good - I just passed the article. I checked with other editors and, given the length of the article, the opinion was no additional images are necessary. DOCUMENT★ERROR 22:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nestlé Purina PetCare

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nestlé Purina PetCare you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DocumentError -- DocumentError (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nestlé Purina PetCare

The article Nestlé Purina PetCare you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nestlé Purina PetCare for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DocumentError -- DocumentError (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinot's Palette

Was looking through my watchlist, and I just wanted to thank you for your work on cleaning up Pinot's Palette. Merry Christmas and a happy New Year! --Amlz (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 14:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Caraway Group

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Caraway Group. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. substantiated reason: 2 newspapers of record; AfD treated as horse race-Augustabreeze (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Commented there. As a 7-person PR agency with no significant coverage, it was a pretty clear delete. All your comments about a horse race and popularity contest don't seem to make any sense and are completely out of the blue, as the discussion was properly focused on acceptable deletion rationale. Generally speaking the community has grown increasingly deletionist and trying to keep these articles is a losing battle. CorporateM (Talk) 15:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

George Billman

Can you explain why you reduced the length of the lead of George Billman. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article. I would think the revised lead is too short in relationship to the length of the article. Also, Web of Science is definitely a reliable source as it is the go to (along with Scopus and MedLine) for searching academic papers. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, when you copy material from one article to another you have to be explicit about where the content came from. Either with a Wikilink in the summary, or by using the {{copied}} template in order to comply with the CC-BY-SA terms. Failure to do so is (technically) a copyright violation, albeit a common mistake. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for your help on the article. If you want to subsection the "Research" section, I would suggest "Model of sudden cardiac death" (where you put "history"); "Omega-3 fatty acids"; and "Response to research" or similar. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@ThaddeusB In general, I think the article should probably be shorter. It contains excessive use of primary sources, original research, self-authored pieces, sources authored by Ohio State University (his employer and sponsor of his research), and other low-quality sources, whereas it should focus on what few genuinely independent sources are available that have no affiliation with him or his research. For example, even with attribution, should we really be citing his employer for claims about how widespread his techniques have become, especially since the university is making the same claims in defense against animal rights activists? I think an additional 30% or so of trimming from its current length would hit the mark.

Like most medical articles, it reads like it was written by a doctor, for doctors, and there's quite a bit of it I don't understand as a lay-person. I wish I could re-write it for our target audience (the public), but I'm not sure I'm qualified to decipher. It's already better than most articles though. CorporateM (Talk) 21:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

As I worked my way down the section, the sources got better and more independent. My editing on it is done. Nice work and happy editing! CorporateM (Talk) 22:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Good, I am glad you see that OSU's statements were only used as a summary of the actual research. It is hard to get "lay summaries" of scientific work, so that is why OSU was used there... The research bits are all derived from secondary sources (other research papers, often review articles, the gold standard of medical sourcing on Wikipedia) - sometimes the original paper is also listed, but only for completeness, never as the original source of the information.

To be clear, PETA is a FRINGE group from a medical perspective. Really, their views have no relevance at all. They routinely target all researchers who do any experiments on animals. The only reason it is appropriate to include at all is because it made the Columbus Dispatch. So, in that context it certainly appropriate to cite the university's response. The university has way more credibility than PETA from a medical standpoint... Your overall reduction of that text is acceptable - naturally I was very hesitant to leave any details out of that section due to not wanting to bias it. However, your revision of the material is not quite accurate - the initial protest and PETA's complaint are unrelated. The investigations primarily cover professional ethics - legal wrongdoing would be exceptionally rare, so revising the text to "legal wrongdoing" gives unfair weight to PETA's fringe views. From a mainstream medical standpoint, there is nothing unethical about the research. I will make a revision, which I hope is acceptable.

I will see what I can do about making it less technical, but there are some things which can't (accurately) be stated in simpler terms. Doing so ends up with statements that are empty of real meaning and/or make things sound more grand than they are... There is a reason we have WP:MEDRS - popular sources simplify and misrepresent the science. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, your assessment of Frontiers is inaccurate. It is a scientific journal of which Billman is the editor. The page in question is his profile there, created by the journal because he is the editor. None-the-less, I will resource the material. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of PETA's claims are really of a medical (rather than ethical) nature or that they are fringe views as defined by the source material, in which PETA's point-of-view has a dominant position and is not overwhelmingly discredited. I do think however that PETA has a reputation for making up facts that support the extremity of their views/acts, so some common sense is needed. Regarding the "legal" thing, I can't find the source myself, so I'm sort of stabbing in the dark. I'm not that active in medical articles, but I find that in most cases there is a balance needed between industry and popular sources. Industry sources tend to favor the point-of-view that is popular among that industry, whereas mainstream sources tend to be overly critical of it, only doing deep investigative reporting on controversial issues. Regarding Frontiers, if it is as you describe, than it sounds like a primary source or self-bio nonetheless. CorporateM (Talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I originally accessed the Dispatch article from a database, but it does appear to be avilable online: [2]. Article: "An Ohio State University researcher who has been under fire from animal-rights groups has been cleared of cruelty to dogs by two federal investigations." I would suggest that is completely consistent with the wording of "found no evidence of wrongdoing". (I also removed an extra "saying" in OSU's response for grammar. It should be clear that both parts 1 and 2 are a statement by OSU, although part 2 could be easily demonstrated as fact by citing the research papers if needed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Richard Lowe Fashion Group - Deletion Nomination Inquiry

To whom it may concern, I'm inquiring as to why you believe this article should be deleted? I'm sorry to say this, but I don't think a search on PR Week is at all useful in this industry sector. Richard Lowe himself is highly published in the trade media, YAHOO , Google and TV fairly regularly and yet not once is he listed in PR Week. I'd never heard of it myself until now. In the world of fashion Richard Lowe's opinion seems to count, he votes next to the likes of Joe Zee and Mary Kate Steinmiller of Teen Vogue and appears on television shows such as: Breaking Amish, The Doctors and GMA.

I think it's important to note that it appears that RLFG is not a traditional "trade" company under a standard corporate banner. Richard Lowe and his group deal largely in celebrity and network needs (highly shielded from the press to protect their stars and exclusivity). RLFG is also largely supplied by the mind and skill set of an individual whose company carries his name. His works are touched upon in media kindly, but he does not seek fame like others. For example: In this stream you will find his work 3/4 way down for an event at the American Museum of Natural History. For that event RLFG shut down the AMNH fountain, built a runway over it and lit up the planetarium in their signature orange color to raise money for cancer, while models wore of the most expensive couture to be auctioned off. They also invited their celebrity clients to participate to raise awareness (Princess Kovalenko, Randi Rahm and Countess LuAnn de Lesseps). I think it's also worth noting Richard Lowe also works for Lynn Tilton, arguably the most powerful woman in America. I would simply say, if she employees him and his reputation is supported by the media, why is it then not supported by wikipedia as relevant?

I fully support cleaning up any missing links and updating any incorrect or ill supplied information. I've done my best to see what can be cleaned up. I'm not a wikipedia expert, but I do know interesting content when I see it. As such, I strongly urge you reconsider the deletion, as this firm does seem to do unique and interesting work within NYC, and the fashion industry. He is a member of Fashion Group International, one of the only fashion trade organizations of note in the country and regularly supports higher education in the form of lecture series and teaching opportunities at the Fashion Institute of Technology. I do think it's worth noting it has been hard to find information, as he is not largely into self promotion. His firm seems very charitable and I've come to learn they will providing on air support and clothing for Mission Makeover on Lifetime Networks filming in early February as well. So the good deeds and media continue to roll forward.

So I see nothing to bar such a page, other than cleaning it up and putting it within the wikipedia scope. Would it be better to change this to an individual oriented page?

68.173.156.196 (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Credible, independent sources like the press are intended to be the primary basis of sourcing content for an article. When not enough source material exists to draw from to make a substantial, neutral work, we can't cover the subject. The general criterion is that we need at least two in-depth profile stories on the subject where the company is the subject of the entire article. These cannot be press releases, brief mentions, blogs, etc. like those linked to above. If you are employed by this company, Wikipedia's Terms of Use requires that you disclose your financial connection, to avoid the appearance of astroturfing. CorporateM (Talk) 14:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

CSG International

Hi! I got a Disambiguation link notification for CSG International.[3] I am not sure where the link should go, and I cannot access the ref to find out ("To read the full text of this article and others like it..."). Could you look into it? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon Thanks for letting me know! It looks like in this case the article was referring to a utilities company that we don't have an article for, so I just removed the wiki-link as a non-controversial edit. CorporateM (Talk) 18:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)