User talk:Thesilentplanet

Proposed deletion of Amvona blog


The article Amvona blog has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dog six (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amvona


A tag has been placed on Amvona requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Amvona
Hello. Thank you for your message. In order to qualify for an encyclopedia article, a subject must be "notable". Please see WP:Notability, the notability guideline. If Amvona satisfies the notability criteria based on what reliable sources have written about it, please let me know and we can discuss restoring the article.

Please be aware that notability is established by independent reliable sources writing about the subject, not by other blogs reposting entries from Amvona.

As far as Naked Capitalism is concerned, I usually don't compare one article to another, but when a blog is cited as one of the top ten financial blogs and its author is mentioned by Paul Krugman in his New York Times blog, I think it's probably notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
Thank you for the response and for taking the time.

Amvona does satisfy the notability criteria based on reliable sources - happy to discuss further so that the article can be restored. Zerohedge and SeekingAlpha are certainly independent writing about the subject (as are the countless attorney's and bloggers who have done the same) - none has requested entries.

SeekingAlpha's editors wrote entirely independent entries - you can not request that an article be featured on SeekingAlpha's home page under "market currents" for example, nor can one request that article be selected for "editors pick" - with about 9000 article per month published on seekingalpha and only about 80-90 editors picks, an article which achieves this status is in the top 1%)

In response to the nakedcapitalism example, we also do not like to make comparisons, but in this case it is an opportunity for us to learn - believe it is a difficulty of a shifting media environment which WP may not fully appreciate yet - that is to say that old media sites and their formats are slowly dying, while new brands such as ZeroHedge and SeekingAlpha are replacing them (see traffic link below), with far greater readership and influence - the gravity of the amvona references therefore is probably not immediately obvious if this context is not fully appreciated.

Nakedcapitalism is cited as a "top ten financial blog" by one individual see: About Gongol on his site Gongol.com - as far as we can tell these stats are not independently verified in anyway - and the gongol site itself is not notable - nor is it an "independent" or "authoritative" third party - it's rankings have not been independently verified.

Also, looked at the Krugman article and could find no references to NakedCapitalism (the subject of the WP article)? What Krugman does in the article is use a term that apparently the author coined, and he is simply attributing the saying to her (likely because the author has indicated that the saying itself is "a trademark", thus it would be trademark infringement if there were not proper attribution) - the expression is "quelle surprise" - the author may well have made this comment while working for the NYT or Krugman for example.

Also, it does not follow that because an expression has become "notable" that the creator of that expression is also notable - the very most that could be said about this reasoning is that the person (not the site) has some notability in so far as he or she came up with a notable expression - but the WP article on nakedcapitalism is not about the author, the expression, or how the author became notable because of the expression - Given the above we can probably agree that the nakedcapitalism references are somewhat weaker than the Amvona references. ...it is incorrect to say that nakedcapitalism (the blog which the WP page is about [and not it's author, or the related saying] is referenced by the NYT - that is simply not the case.

Further Krugman's "opinion pages" are arguably less notable and independent than that of SeekingAlpha or Zerohedge - with SeekingAlpha having some 50 million unique visitors per month (and ZeroHedge about the same) - certainly more than Krugman's opinion pages - so when the editors at SeekingAlpha wrote their piece on the Amvona article, they exposed the topic to 50 mln. visitors per month - (far more than Krugman did to expose Ives Smith's "saying") - SeekingAlpha is also far more independent than Gongol or the Krugman opinion page, while ZeroHedge, which regularly publishes the Amvona peices is thought to be one of the most (if not the most) trafficked financial and economics sites in the world - indeed with more traffic than CNBC's "the street" - which is why countless sites have referenced the Amvona articles as "published on Zerohedge".

To affirm this point, the Kurgman article has about 69 comments and no apparent shares on Facebook. One of the more recent Amvona article by comparison has several hundred comments between sites (Amvona, SeekingAlpha, and ZeroHedge etc.) and about 4,000 shares on Facebook between the various sites who have written about it - it is also posted on the sites of many prominent bloggers and attorney's websites.

If the reality of the new and changing media world we live in is considered (even mainstream news sites and academics are turning into "blog" formats" in order to emulate the success of sites such as ZeroHedge and SeekingAlpha), it is very difficult to say that amvona and it's articles are not "notable". Also, it is important to note that the Amvona articles were not submitted nor requested by most of the sites who reference them... they are referenced independently, which is why they are often mis-attributed.

On a final note, Amvona was referenced in about five books, and a newspaper - all of those references were provided in the original article, but removed by another editor before it was deleted.

look forward to discussing restoring the article.... also appreciate any further feedback - thank you.

Thesilentplanet (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't be drawn into a discussion about another article. If you feel Naked Capitalism isn't notable, nominate it for deletion.
 * With respect to the laundry list of blogs you had appended to the article about Amvona, I don't see any that is about Amvona. Its history. When it was started. Who started it. Why it is important. Those are the types of sources that make a subject notable. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...thought wikipedia was about discussion? Our honest interest is in learning, and was using only one example for clarification purposes - we hope you will help us learn more. We are not interested in deleting an article, but building them up - our understanding of WP is that editors and administrators should be very slow to delete articles.

With regards to the other comments - there were several links provided that were "about" amvona and it's history including when it was started and by whom (these include references in books and newspapers (many of these references were deleted out of the article (by other editors) before it was deleted), and articles published on major news sites including SeekingAlpha - we are particularly intersted to learn how the SeekingAlpha article on Amvona is somehow not "notable" enough). Amvona is also important because of the important people discussing it, which we provided quotes and other links - there was also Significant coverage of the subject to say the least.

Please explain how these, taken along with the quotes from notable and authoritative figures fail to meet the WP criteria - as we read it these items meet precisely the criteria.

We would like you to help us build the Amvona page around the information that is out there - including the references on major news sites such as SeekingAlpha.

Thank you.

Thesilentplanet (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide me with a couple of links to these articles about Amvona, because I can't seem to find them. (If you need it, I can temporarily restore the article so you have access to the long list of links in it.) And you mentioned books in which Amvona is discussed. Can you provide the titles of these books? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Malik,

Thank you for the response and apologies for the slow response... the links to about Amvona are on the original page (here is the "about us" page on the site http://www.amvona.com/about.html) - most of the other sites that reference the articles in the original WP article reference "amvona"

Thanks for the offer to restore the page - right now the critical thing we are interested in is getting it right and learning - as we have other articles we would like to author and also contribute to others yet. In this case, the article on the amvona site are very widely distributed and read, and are some of the leading article on their respective topics - in other words they are both important and notable - so our question is, how do we get this across in wikipedia? where are we going wrong?

here are a couple of thoughts we have (let us know what you think)

- the most important reference so far appears to be the feature on SeekingAlpha which has over 50 mln. visitors per month and is thus one of the most trafficked news sites in the world - this certainly seems to be notable.

- Maybe it would be a better approach to focus the article as a stub initially around this notable reference?

- or maybe it is better to make the wikipedia article about the author "Greg Lemelson" instead - because he is the author of the articles and the founder of the site - for example, a search on google for Greg Lemelson produces about 330k ghits.

As always look forward to your response and help.

also, per your request, here are the references in books - when the site was formerly a photo related site:

Thesilentplanet (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Photography and E-commerce references

 * Amvona "About Us" Page


 * "Digital Art Photography for Dummies" (page 140)


 * "Hands-on guide to Flash video: Web video and Flash media server" (page 20)
 * "55 Surefire Internet Businesses You Can Start for Under $5000" (page 31)
 * "Design and Launch an Online E-Commerce Business in a Week" (page 39)
 * "Design and Launch an Online Boutique in a Week" (page 64)
 * "Design and Launch an Online Web Design Business in a Week" (page 112)
 * "The Adobe Photoshop layers book: harnessing Photoshop's most powerful tool" (page xi)
 * "eBay Photography the smart way" (page 195)
 * "EventDV: the authority for event videographers" (Volume 21, Issues 1-12)
 * Amvona eBay page
 * The Sun Chronicle Frugal business - Mansfield CEO never lost sight of his bottom line

Thesilentplanet (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form; it is now located at Wikipedia&. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hallows AG (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review
I'm afraid that off-hand mentions of Amvona don't help establish its notability.

I recommend you take your case to WP:Deletion review, where you can try to convince other editors that I deleted the article about Amvona improperly.

I also see that you've written a new article about Amvona. Perhaps the editor who reviews that article will see the blog's notability where I can't. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)