User talk:Josfl

Notability of Study Guides and Strategies
A tag has been placed on Study Guides and Strategies requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. LittleOldMe (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

question
...are you Joe Landsberger? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am Joe Landsberger. Can also be contacted through my website. I am a little clumsy at wikipedia. If you need more validity about my website, it has a Google ranking of 7 of 10, and 1 on MSN.Josfl (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:COI and WP:Business FAQ. Google hits are based on relevance, not Wikipedia's notability criteria. Sparknotes is notable because it is a significant part of Barnes & Noble. Cliffnotes is ubiquitous; I can't see how you could question its notability.  Your website, on the other hand, is not notable. In addition, your submission had no 3rd party nontrivial coverage of the site, and I likewise find none.  If you have verifiable, reliable sources independent of you which provide such coverage, please let me know. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? MERLOT-Teacher Education: Average Rating Overall - 4.33 (highest rating possible = 5); the Scout Report, The Educational Society for Resource Management, Busy Educator Award, Best of Education on the Web 2000--Los Angeles Educational Project, Site of the Week: College of Engineering--University of Wisconsin/Madison, Internet Resource of the Month--The Learning Center Newsletter, USAToday Hot Site, USAToday Best Best for EducatorsGood Housekeeping's "Site of the Day", International Association of Web Masters and Designers "2001-2002 Golden Web Award, Wall Street Executive Library Feature Site, Bobby Approved, Kathy Schrock's Guide for Educators "Sites of the School Days" Site 17, Access Washington  "Just for Kids" recommended site by Washington State Department of Information Services, Rapid City Area Schools Tip of the Week, AnswerPoint.org--Featured site, National Council of Teachers of English, Maryland Public Television Top Ten Internet Sites for Families,  Education World Review "A" CONTENT--"B" AESTHETICS--"A" ORGANIZATION--"A" REVIEW, ACCESS Magazine, Sunday STAR-TRIBUNE,  the "A" list,   StudentAffairs.com Site of the month, approved for all ages by "SafeSurf",  EditAvenue Writing Tips Award,  American Libary Association 10 Top Internet Sites for Families, Best of the Web:University of North Carolina School of Education (...the most innovative and successful practices).

You wouldn't be able to "see" it but the guides have been donated for use on One Laptop per Child Program servers. Also check out Stumbleupon reviews.

Want more?Josfl (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to add the most recent review 12/31/08 from Curriki http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Coll_studyguides/StudyGuidesandStrategies "exemplary" "3"

I might add that I would have appreciated that you not make accusations "your website, on the other hand, is not notable" and instead request information on notability. Josfl (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I seem to not be assuming good faith. However, based on my research, limited as it is, I could not determine notability in the same way as the other sites you mentioned.  I LOVE to be proven wrong, so please do so! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to have verifiable, reliable sources. Hyperlinks or bibliographic information per WP:CITE will suffice. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

So: how many do you want? How many did Sparknotes and Cliffnotes provide? Did you make the same assumptions for them? My contention is that a not-for-profit resource is judged by different criteria than a commercial one.Josfl (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability for companies and organizations remains the same. Read the other two articles and see what claims were made that suggest notability, and the types of sources that were used. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still would like an answer from you for my question since the issue revolves around your objection and criteria. How many do you want? The link did not provide a quantity which would be helpful. Josfl (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The criteria simply ask for multiple nontrivial references from reliable and verifiable sources. If more is requested by other editors, or if others still feel the article does not establish notability, then they can use the articles for deletion procedure, wherein a community consensus will be sought, providing more input from the Wikipedia community as to whether the article should stay and be improved, or be deleted.  Even if deletion after that process occurs, there is the deletion review process, if you wish to press the issue.  Keep in mind, though, that your conflict of interest and use of your account to serve a single agenda will be constantly pointed out, so it will be an uphill battle all the way.  If you can find at least two of your references online, let me see them, and if they look like they'll pass initial overview, I'll support the article as best I can; while you work on getting the other references available.  I would say that all of the ones you listed are relevant; an actual article talking about the website in a non-trivial way would be awesome. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Acree, J. (May 28, 2008). Material Detail. In MERLOT Material Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.merlot.org/merlot/viewMaterial.htm?id=87717

NA. (December 31, 2007). Curriki Study Guides and Strategies. In Curriki Web Home. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Coll_studyguides/StudyGuidesandStrategies?bc=&showMeta=true

NA. (June 30, 2004). Education World:: Site Reviews:: Study Guides and Strategies. In Education World, The Educator's Best Friend. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://www.education-world.com/awards/past/2001/r0301-16.shtmlJosfl (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the next step in resolving this, or is more information needed?Josfl (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there has been no action on this, one way or another. Can you clarify why?Josfl (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been no action or response in this for months. WhyJosfl (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the 3 links you provided above, only one makes an attempt to review the product/service. Wikipedia requires multiple, non-trivial coverages from reliable sources. The other two are simply catalog entries.  Similarly, we would not count online bookstores' listings of a book as evidence of notability, because anyone can sell on most well-known sites. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tony here. While Google shows a lot of references to and recommendations of your site, detailed articles in reliable sources are a bit hard to come by -- and after 7 years, you'd think somebody would have done an article on it if it were notable enough for an article here. There are, of course, exceptions, and this may be one. You can try recreating the article, including the references you've provided here, with notes as to why they satisfy the "reliable source" criteria, and see what happens. (And the most accurate answer to "why was there no action" was that you didn't take any. Sorry.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you folks need for an entry. Commercial websites in the same category provide no such "detailed articles" so that probably reflects your bias. The three that I provided are the pinnacle of educational portals, and each highly ranks my website. You are right that have I not cited "articles" but then in what media? Obviously the citations at the top of this exchange are worthless to you. I have long history of being referenced in journals and even newspapers. I could cite these but I think then the target would move again. As regards not taking any action, it appears that my requests for "the next step in resolving this" was not adequate in July, nor ever will be. It leads me to believe that there is another agenda here and that is a shame. How could you ignore academic support centers and school systems around the world referencing my website as a criteria for significance? I think your world is one where there is a digital pre-ordained myopia and I give up. My empowerment will thus continue to be derived from the exponential growth in traffic this year at over 7.5 million visitors--all seeking simple recommendations on how to succeed in studies, without distractions, and very focused on helping them. Also on the many who send email, who translate voluntarily pages for the benefit of their charges, and on and on. You can can rest on your commercial-website orientation that has no such requirement.Josfl (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately "commercial website orientation" is the easiest way to verify notability. More specifically, it is verifiable, reliable sources which establish notability.  You've not provided any citations which even suggest that.


 * Let's look at SparkNotes, shall we? It has been covered in The San Francisco Chronicle, the Wall Street Journal, the Register-Guard, the Christian Science Monitor, Guardian Unlimited, and KMGH-TV Denver Channel 7, to name a few.  ALL of these references speak about the subject in a nontrivial way, discussing the impact of the subject on a segment of society.  Another way we can try to determine the actual impact of your website is the website traffic it receives. The traffic at SparkNotes is rated at an average of 2,292 over a three month average at Alexa.com.  Your site, http://www.studygs.net/, is ranked at 43,904.  Not nearly a comparable traffic flow.


 * Even in Google Scholar your site comes up only 28 times, compared to the 295 times for SparkNotes. I'm honestly not trying to rub this in your face.  I am trying to show you that entities you cited as being comparable to your own that are on Wikipedia (somehow legitimizing your article solely on that) have a much stronger online presence, and most importantly, have been reviewed multiple times by notable entities.


 * These criteria were decided upon and agreed to by the entire Wikipedia community. This is how we determine a threshold between the abstract concepts of "notable" and "non-notable."  The sources you've provided thusfar are completely unconvincing, and my research into the comparison between you and one of your "competitor" websites further emphasizes the lack of impact we can find regarding your site.  I can guarantee you that if your site did meet our threshold, that is, someone finding verifiable, reliable sources which establish notability, no one, even with any perceived power or influence, could prevent the article's creation.  At this time, therefore, I can, with reasonable certainty, submit that an article on your project will not succeed here.  This is not to say it will never be notable.  That notion could not be further from the truth.  The instant that it crosses that threshold, it will remain in Wikipedia in perpetuity, as notability is not temporary.  Once it makes a mark, that mark is made.  Period.


 * This does not mean that you can't contribute. There's TONS of stuff to do here, and a scholarly individual such as yourself can do a world of good helping out.  I invite you to check out the portal and start from there.  Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not compare my site Study Guides and Strategies (SGS) with Cliffnotes, another one of your featured commercial websites? I agree that my traffic is about one tenth or so of SparkNotes. The point here is that you have chosen one commercial site, yet all the other relative sites don't compare with the SGS website. But have you explored SGS prominence in Vietnamese? Arabic? Spanish? I also know that SparkNotes cannot compete with my visibility in Google Search. Try a search on "time management" and see what you find in terms of relative prominence, and find any entry for SparkNotes. It is not a competition for traffic but rather value. However, SparkNotes is only in English, and as a commercial website I doubt has a educational community of volunteer contributors. I would also refer you to Merlot and the entries for SparkNotes and CliffNotes.