User talk:Seabascol55

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lifeline Program (October 3)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! the one sean 13:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lifeline Program (January 19)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit when you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! APerson (talk!) 14:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeline Program

Hi APerson,

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my submission. I would like a little more clarification about why you did not think my sources were reliable. For instance, Insurance Selling is a trade publication. I also used The NY Times and FOX Business News as sources as well. Can you help me understand why you sent me to the explanation of pseudo science? I'm new to this and still trying to figure things out. Thanks!

Seabascol55 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Sebastian[reply]

The previous reviewer, Theonesean, had the same concern as I do. The specific Times and FOX sources you mention are, indeed, very reliable sources and I don't have any issue with them. It just seems to me like the article seems to be relying a lot on sources that, according to one "About" page, seem to be in the business of marketing medical advice that, according to the disclaimer, is "neither endors[ing] nor oppos[ing] any material" and "not meant to be a substitute for advice from medical professionals".

Anyway, taking a much closer look at the article, notability does not seem to be an issue. I would suggest getting a few more prominent, published sources, but otherwise the article is good. WP:RS is just an explanation of what sources Wikipedia should be based on. If you re-submit it, another reviewer or I will take a look at it and probably accept it. Thank you for your contributions! APerson (talk!) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. the one sean 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you APerson for your feedback! I was able to add sources from CNN, Yahoo Finance, and Reuters. I hope I have managed to cover all bases here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabascol55 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lifeline Program (February 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for
your contributions
to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 17:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Needed

Hi Sintaku,

I appreciate the time you took to review my article. Can you please clarify why you felt this page reads like an advertisement? Two other editors felt that it met the requirements of notability, @Theonesean (pinging) and @APerson (pinging), but just needed more sources which I added. Among those sources are CNN, Yahoo Finance, the New York Times, Reuters, and Fox Business News, all of which are highly regarded news sources. Can you please be more specific so that I may make those changes?

Seabascol55 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Sebastian[reply]

I read it and it made is sound like an advert for the company.

Some things like the following are not needed:

"A life settlement is the sale of an in-force life insurance policy to a third party for more than the surrender value, but less than the death benefit."
The Business Model section

Regarding the sources.

[1] - Company in same field, could be press release
[2] - Press Release
[3] - No mention of Lifeline
[4] - Press Release
[5] - Seems like an advertorial (may pass as a reliable source, doubt it)
[6] - Press Release
[7] - Possible paid article
And more...

The only real independent reliable source would be:

[8] - Doesn't mention much about Lifeline, more about the owner.

~~ Sintaku ^Talk 16:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with your statement that some of the sources are unreliable. However, there is definitely more than one independent, reliable source. The NYT source is good, but so are the two Fox Business cites and the CBS one. The volume of press coverage that this company has gotten proves notability to me, as does the statement made in the article that the company was the "first licensed viatical company in Florida" (needs a citation though). It may read a little like an advertisement at times, but the core of notability and history is there. Articles almost certainly should be summaries of the coverage of the subject; in this respect, the article looks good to me. APerson (talk!) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand both of your skepticism's about the Insurance Selling article, but I can assure you it is not an advertorial, as it would legally have to denote that. It is a national trade magazine for insurance agents. One that is respected to deliver industry news. The reason you saw a medical disclaimer is for one to acquire life insurance one's health/medical history is taken into account to determine premium payments.

It also seems you take issue with some of the other sources such as The Providence Journal, which was "first published in 1829 and the oldest continuously-published daily newspaper in the United States, was purchased in 1996 by the A.H. Belo Corporation. The newspaper has won four Pulitzer Prizes." ^[1] Or the Sierra Star which is not an advertisement, but a news paper that is an "Adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with the laws of California by Decree No. 11168 of the Superior County of the County of Madera dated December 19, 1958, and qualified for the publication of matters required by law to be published in a newspaper." ^[2]

I can go source by source if need be.

Seabascol55 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seabascol55: Sintaku's concerns do not seem to me to be about the reputability of the newspapers; rather, they are about the possibility that the articles are press releases and/or that the newspapers were paid to write the articles. Based on the potentially promotional tone of some of the articles, this is probably a valid assertion. I would suggest checking WP:NEWSORG and making sure that as many of the sources as possible are unbiased.

Also, note that WP:BIASED says that "[w]hile a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." APerson (talk!) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@APerson: I'm sorry but I don't think that argument is logical. If you look at the Providence's article, for example, you can see the the writer's email is listed, and the article itself is copy written. What's being suggested here is that any publication will feature/report on/print anything as truthful non-biased information without making it clear that is an advertisement, and does not reflect the views/opinion of the newspaper itself, if they are paid money to do so. So Sintaku is indeed questioning their journalistic integrity, specifically Donita Naylor's (the author). ^[3] Why in the world would an advertisement be written- not by the company itself- but by the newspaper's "breaking news reporter"?

Talkback

Hello, Seabascol55. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
Message added 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

APerson (talk!) 14:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Lifeline Program (June 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help on the reviewer's talk page or at the Articles for creation help desk.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)^(Support) 18:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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) 01:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. 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) 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Lifeline Program

Hello, Seabascol55. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Lifeline Program".

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 that Articles for Creation is not for 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, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Providence_Journal

[2] ttp://www.sierrastar.com/about-us/

[3] ttp://www.providencejournal.com/writers/donita-naylor/

[1]

[2]

[3]