Talk:SVM (company)

Untitled
From my talk page: Hi, I posted my first article and it was deleted. I'd really like to learn from this experience and see if there is a way to address the concerns in the article about SVM and have it reposted. A couple of points of background: again, as a novice, I had trouble figuring out the title for the article (since the company is initials and there are other possible articles that come up under that search) and don't think I did that correctly and got all confused with some re-direction instructions. Also, I went through the process of uploading (and justifying) the use of the logo, but couldn't get it attached to the article (I could go back for more help on that and try to get it attached, but the article was deleted!). I have had an interest in the booming gift card industry, and in researching this topic found that this company is a large issuer of them, and then also saw that Wikipedia is working to increase the number and quality of the company profiles posted (I think an example in a Wiki overview is the restaurant chain Mighty Taco?). Believe me, I tried to do the research, document the relevance of the company, cite sources, and also tap into how this all relevant with the boom of gift cards. I guess I did something wrong... Also, the article was speedily deleted - not sure why it was and why it wasn't marked as an article that needed attention, which if not addressed would then be deleted. Thank you, I'd like to learn and see if I can address concerns. Llcavall (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to show why this particular company is notable in the industry. This can be done in basically two ways: articles about the company in reliable sources showing a public interest in it, nut they need to be about the specific company in a particular way. Alternatively, showing through reliable sources a major size or market share. Of the sources, the Washington Post article has only a brief mention of the company in a much more general article; the USA Today article has no mention; neither does the Archstone;  About.com ditto; The only actual source is the paragraph in npn.web. The question there is whether it is reliable or is basically PR--the actualsource is the statement by a rep of the company, which is a little dubious for an encyclopedia.
 * However, perhaps it is not absolutely hopelessly spammy, but fixable if you get some real financial and market share data from a reliable source. So I'm undeleting it and putting a prod tag on, to give you 5 days to decrease the general industry background and add some more sourced information about the particular company. You might look at WP:BFAQ for a guide about doing it. A business librarian can probably help find the data.  If you think you improve it enough, remove the tag. If I disagree, I'll send it for a consensus decision at Afd. Anyone else who disagrees can do the same of course. DGG (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Thanks for giving me time to work on this some more and reposting - this is such an interesting process. I hope I address your needs and concerns, and attempt to explain what I have done here.

I have been working to establish more citations and relevance for SVM. There are facts on the company in this article – it does not seem like an advertisement, and again states facts about the company, so I would believe that flag can be removed. As far as relevance goes, this company has been in the press over the years, and is cited as a leader in this industry. I have brought in more news articles as citations.

This is what attracted me to do a company article in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies. It is explained that the goal is “to improve the depth and breadth of coverage in Wikipedia of notable companies and to bring as many of these articles to good / featured status as possible…notable for-profit companies, businesses & corporations, no matter where based, whether public or private, existing or merged/liquidated.” I especially noted the bottom section, the “Importance Scale,” which includes companies that are “minor subsidiaries or local small businesses.”  As I have been interested in gift card usage in the US and have looked for articles on this topic, I found out about SVM, which is the company behind many of the gift cards out there today. Then came about the idea for including this specialized company as a Wiki entry – for which it appears that Wikipedia is looking for, if the company is relevant. And then of course, is the question: what is relevant? My understanding is a company that is notable as it has been mentioned in the press by news-related sources. I know this is a subjective issue, but if I look at other companies in Wikipedia that are considered “relevant” – for example Mighty Taco was sited in the Project Company article as a relevant company of lesser importance – when I look at Mighty Taco’s Wikipedia entry, I find a small, fast food chain of 15 locations in the Buffalo area. There is not one citation for the company – who knows if they have ever been newsworthy? Plus there are no notes as to where the information gathered for the Mighty Taco article was obtained. I point this out not because I believe that Mighty Taco should be deleted, but because I believe there should be consistency among the criteria for keeping a company (which can be very hard to do when there are many editors). Should there be footnotes for the Mighty Taco article? Probably. Is it a notable company? Of that I am not sure, but I do image there are likely some news articles about it out there somewhere (but that have not been noted in the article). An editor looking at my initial SVM article submission mentioned I should try to find market share information on this company. Well, I learned that this is not possible since it is a private company. Many of the private companies in Wikipedia, including Mighty Taco, are private companies and those who submit these articles cannot provide sales or market share information. And as an aside, with Mighty Taco, their market share would be tiny in the fast food industry….but not necessarily a reason to exclude that company. I would believe there are other criteria for a company to be relevant. And as I look through other companies as I am trying to benchmark what to do to improve this article, I see a huge range of data provided in these other articles – some have a lot of information, some has little information. I bring First Data up as an example – which is a large company – but is it relevant? Do people care? There is nothing in the article that would help that claim (nor any sources cited). So I again make the argument that with SVM, citations are included, relevance is (I believe) displayed, and facts are stated. [As an aside, I am very interested in this company project of Wikipedia’s….maybe next time I should look at the list of companies that it is requested contributors research and post – may make it easier next time! Live and learn!]Llcavall (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Two editors have looked at the article and both are of the opinion that it does not read like an advertisement, so I have removed that tag. One of the editors did, however, suggest that some of the lists be replaced with prose, so the history section has been re-written to reflect that. I believe that the proper action has been taken to remove this tag - i.e. reaching out to others for an opinion before doing so.Llcavall (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Oppose move: I can't see how this can move to SVM. SVM is the disambiguation page for a three letter acronym. That has to take priority over this article. Of course, this article can be listed on SVM. I think that would be much better idea. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The requested move was taken care of a while ago - the company is simply a three letter acronym that now comes up with all the other similar entries on the disambiguation page. So should this note about moving the page come off, since it was already done?Llcavall (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. If it is no longer relevant then I think it is best to remove it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)