Talk:Dominion Enterprises

Untitled
should I remove the company parts? suggest

links
Added the "linkfarm" tag to the section of links which looks like a huge advertisement. Wperdue (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue

Notability check
I searched several article databases and was unable to come up with any reliable sources giving significant coverage on this company. Since this is a subsidiary of a larger company, I've suggested that any pertinent info be merged into the parent company's article at Landmark Media Enterprises. --Darkwind (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --BwB (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Enterprises and Landmark Media Enterprises are currently a joint venture, and there are many subsidiaries of Dominion Enterprises that receive significant coverage, such as For Rent Media Solutions. Landmark is in fact _not_ larger than Dominion Enterprises. Suggest doing more research. --mapdock (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Enterprises Lawsuit
First, the addition of the US Dept of Labor's Amicus Brief to the page is 1. a verifiable source and 2. not intended to be a blow by blow account of the lawsuit. When a non-party to a lawsuit, in this case the Dept of Labor, goes to the extent of filing a "Friend of the Court" Brief, it is significant and newsworthy. The lawsuit itself is significant and Dominion Enterprises is a co-defendant. The co-defendant executives who are named in the suit hold roles with Dominion Enterprises and thus carries significance. As noted in the Dept of Labor Brief, the lawsuit at issue is a proper vehicle to clarify a cloudy issue within the federal courts. Further, the inclusion of the lawsuit and its growing legal significance based on the Dept of Labor's filed Brief is a prime example of meeting the goals of the WikiProject Companies mission. This provides appropriate coverage regarding a notable company involved in a lawsuit which will carry national implications by clarifying the application of ERISA federal law. The sources for the lawsuit and the Brief filing have been included so there is no issue of a lack or unreliable source. Norfolk Truth (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please engage on the article talk page, not my personal page. I have moved your comment here.


 * Please be aware of some key points:
 * The WP:BURDEN is on you to support the material you want to add. You should not restore the material until that burden is met. Edit warring as you have been doing will not achieve what you want.
 * The verifiability and reliability of the sources are not in question. We need significant coverage by secondary sources. All we have are primary sources about this. Secondary sources are required, but have not been provided.
 * If it's indeed "newsworthy", then we need to cite verifiable and reliable news sources that provide coverage. It isn't up to us to decide what is or isn't newsworthy. That's the job of the sources we cite. If it isn't in the news, then by definition it isn't newsworthy. What secondary sources have covered this? A listing on a docket list, and an amicus brief, don't constitute proper coverage.
 * Editorial opinions about significance or importance don't matter here. If it hasn't received significance coverage, then it isn't significant in the context of Wikipedia. Companies experience lawsuits all the time. No secondary sources are cited that indicate this merits inclusion in the article.
 * Speculation about national implications is pure WP:Original research. We don't include material based on such speculation.
 * I hope that makes it clear why, at this time, the material about the lawsuit doesn't merit inclusion. Please provide better justification for its inclusion (that is, provide actual secondary source coverage). Otherwise the content doesn't belong in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there have been no policy-based counter-argument for over a week, I have removed the content about the lawsuit. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic, the Wikipedia policy for sourcing articles permits primary sources as it states "to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources" are acceptable. The original inclusion of the lawsuit included a secondary source, the Justia website. Plus, the language to include the lawsuit was previously edited by Hammersoft on May 5, 2016 and deemed appropriate per Hammersoft's interpretation of Wikipedia's critera. You gave no legitimate basis to remove the previously edited lawsuit content with secondary sources. Also the Amicus Brief although a primary source can be included because Wikipedia policy expressly permits primary sources. Norfolk Truth (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please try to understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources. Primary sources are acceptable for confirming what a subject says about itself. A primary source is OK for confirming certain mundane facts, like number of employees, gross annual revenues, and so forth. But primary sources are not acceptable as inclusion criteria for content. In this case, a primary source like an amicus brief would be acceptable for describing certain details of the case only if that case is demonstrably notable by having significant coverage in secondary sources. That is not the case here. Wikipedia is not a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Mere existence doesn't make a court case notable. If it isn't notable, it doesn't need mentioning.


 * The mere fact that cleaned up your initial biased edits doesn't constitute "deemed appropriate per interpretation of Wikipedia's criteria." You should not presume to know the mind of others here; Hammersoft should speak for himself if he sees fit to do so. I refer you to the reply  gave on Talk:Landmark Media Enterprises. My replies here, and his there, are more than enough basis to remove the material you added. We understand that you may not be familiar with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the nuances. But honestly, your edits suggest that you have some sort of conflict of interest with this subject, and if that is the case, you need to declare it. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with Amatulic's statements both about the article and about me. My edits to the page did not constitute an assertion that the primary sources and the material it supports should be included, just that what was then being asserted needed to be supported by cites and made neutral. I am deeply concerned this material is included period. It creates undue weight regarding the allegations, is absent any rebuttal by the accused parties, and is absent any secondary sources to support it. Is it newsworthy? Maybe, but that isn't for us to determine. We are not a newspaper. If there is secondary sourcing then inclusion may be warranted and then a primary source included to further buttress claims made in the secondary source(s). Absent secondary sources, it is really flat wrong to be including this segment. Lastly, the edit warring must stop. Now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)