User:Cullen328/Sandbox/Marino

I take your concerns seriously, so will try to address them. You've said that the three strongest sources available to show Corporate Insight's notability are the following:

From the New York Times: "'We don’t know of any major U.S. financial institutions doing things along those lines, such as trying to gauge whether somebody is lying,' Daniel Wiegand, a senior analyst at Corporate Insight, a company that consults with banks on consumer technology, said in a telephone interview."

From CNBC: "Financial services' social media activity has exploded over the past two years, according to a new report by Corporate Insight that analyses the activity of 70 brokerages, banks, credit card companies and asset management firms." and "Michael Ellison, president of Corporate Insight, tells me he predicts that social media investment will eventually have a direct correlation to success. While it's hard to measure the success of investment in social media, companies have no doubt that they have to be there."

From a Wall Street Journal video: Michael Ellison is introduced as president of Corporate Insight, "which does a lot of research and analysis on how advisors can better the client experience." Ellison is then interviewed.

What exactly have we learned about Corporate Insight as a company itself from those sources? When was it founded? How many employees does it have? Where is its headquarters? Does it have other offices? How many employees does it have? Who, specifically, are its customers? Who are its competitors? What are its annual revenues? Is it a private company or is it publicly traded? Is it a corporation itself, or a partnership, or a sole proprietorship? Although it may not be necessary to learn all of that from coverage in the three best sources, we have learned none of that from these three sources.

You selected these as the best three sources but they tell us very little about Corporate Insight as a company, except that financial journalists sometimes interview people who work for them and sometimes discuss the findings of their research reports. As I think you know by now, the general notability guideline requires significant coverage, which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is really hard to argue that the three best sources you've provided rise to the level of "significant coverage" of Corporate Insight as a company as needed to meet the general notability guideline.

Your article got deleted, and I understand your frustration and disappointment. You state that the decision was "arbitrary". My response would be that the article was deleted because of a fair application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You state that the article was deleted by "some random group of people". My response is that the people who discussed you article are not "random" but rather part of a dedicated group of Wikipedia volunteers who do their best to deal with a flood of articles of new articles every single day. Some are complete garbage and are deleted immediately. Others such as yours are borderline issues, and are debated in detail for a week or more. I have participated in roughly 1000 such debates. I recommend keeping articles about 46% of the time, deleting them about 52% of the time, and occasionally merging or redirecting. So I am not dedicated to deleting articles. The administrators who close these debates are experienced enough to recognize policy-based arguments and to disregard frivolous arguments. It is not vote counting, but a process of building informed consensus.

On to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. You don't like the article and I don't much like it myself. I've never played the game, don't really know what it is, and wish that Wikipedia didn't have so many articles about it. But there is one thing that is indisputably true about Dungeons and Dragons that is not true about Corporate Insight: Dungeons and Dragons is notable by Wikipedia's standards. It has been successful for 37 years. Dozens of books have been published about it, including many that are completely independent of the game company. It has been covered in great detail by a wide range of reliable publications. As for the specific article, it has been on Wikipedia for about 3-1/2 years. It has had well over 500 but not quite 1000 edits. Dozens of different editors have participated, and roughly five have made many edits to the article. I see no evidence at all that any of the most active editors are employees of Dungeons and Dragons, although their user pages confirm that they are interested in fantasy, comics and so on. One of the editors discusses the shortcomings in Dungeons and Dragons articles, how controversial they have been on Wikipedia, and efforts to improve such articles.

The English Wikipedia isn't perfect. It needs lots of work. Perhaps you and I can agree that it has too many Dungeons and Dragons articles. However, this encyclopedia has nearly 3.8 million articles, and has more far more original and informative content that any other website. Last time I looked, it is the sixth most popular website in the world, and Google, the number one website, displays Wikipedia articles at the very top of millions of search inquiries. Roughly 15% of all internet users worldwide will visit Wikipedia on any given day. So, perhaps, we are doing some things right?

You wrote, "In the back of your head you know that’s a fair point and a fair criticism of Wikipedia’s current process. If you actually read my last post on the sources for this now deleted page somewhere in the back of your head you probably also know that those sources and reasoning should qualify as notable. The front of your head, however… says hey fuck this guy I’m just going to give him some cute term we use to address similar criticisms to make myself feel enlightened and not that there’s an underlying issue."

I welcome fair criticism of Wikipedia and to the extent that our current policies and procedures have led to excessive coverage of relatively trivial aspects of popular culture, then I agree with you. On the other hand, those of us who care little or nothing about Dungeons and Dragons or Transformers or anime or Marvel Comics or Miley Cyrus or gangster rap do not have to read those articles. Those are all indisputably notable topics, and notable topics are what we cover on Wikipedia. But because of the high visibility of Wikipedia articles online, a large number of experienced Wikipedia editors are extremely sensitive about using Wikipedia as a vehicle to publicize any topic which is not yet notable, especially an article about any sort of commercial venture.

In conclusion, my response is not to say "fuck this guy" and instead of throwing out a "cute term", I have taken a hour of my time to try to explain my point of view as an experienced editor who has created dozens of new articles and expanded hundreds more. Feel free to discuss these matters with me, and I hope that you will decide to stay around on Wikipedia. We can use your help. I wish you well.