User talk:Wscross

proposed deletion

 * I'm about played out on this, because I have been editing and re-editing this entry to try and conform to the rules and style of Wikipedia, including citing references in at least one magazine and the "NY Times" (the company has been cited in numerous papers and magazines, both general interest and trade). But it's clear I'm up against people who do not have much grasp of business, or have a personal animosity towards it. To call my contributions "fustian" is insulting, and shows an ignorance of the business world.
 * I didn't call your contributions "fustian". I'm not even sure what "fustian" means.  You called MY contributions fustian; or at least someone using the Wscross account did (check the page history if you wish).  This page has become disordered; it is better to only add comments at the end of the page, or immediately after something you want to respond to.--Brianyoumans 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I think you HAVE improved your company's page. As to notability, the real question is, I suppose, "Did you have to write the entry yourself?"  If no one outside your company would bother to write an article on it, then the company doesn't need a Wikipedia article. --Brianyoumans 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Broad Street Licensing Group for deletion. --Brianyoumans 06:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Applying visible brands to products might seem easy and straightforward, but it's not. Downey Fabric Softener, for example, is the #1 brand, yet has little or no licensing traction. The Snuggle brand was far more successful, thanks to some clever applications in areas that were not readily apparent even to the brand's management. In the case of The Culinary Institute, Broad Street Licensing's achievement has not been replicated by other companies or brands, which would undermine the claim that this is either self-evident or unremarkable.
 * Finally, this kind of running skirmish makes me less inclined to bring my business experience and information to other sections, including the one on "licensing," which I extensively re-edited and expanded. If Wikipedia is going to make contributions a thing of hits and popularity, then I will no longer feel any interest in bringing specialized knowledge to the community. I don't know if you're one of the editors or just another user, but the fact that I'm even having this conversation with you is actually quite ridiculous.
 * I'm just a user who is spending his own time improving Wikipedia. So are all the other people doing this - nobody is getting paid (except a very few employed by the Foundation.)  But there has to be some process to determine what goes into Wikipedia and what gets taken out; otherwise, it would become just a hodgepodge of posted material, much of it uninteresting, out of date, or not true. Brianyoumans 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at this user's contributions, and they are fustian in nature. He has offered no reason for deleting this entry, and I can only suspect it has something to do with his own personal interests.

The licensing business is as relevent or as irrelevent as any other aspect of American business culture. While less well-known than the Creamsicle brand, for example, the Broad Street Licensing Group in fact put together the business venture that resulted in Creamsicle candies.

My overall question is: is Wikipedia a full encyclopedia, or just the province of cranks and those with no apparent knowledge of business?


 * I'm sorry that you took my proposed deletion badly. I did, however, offer reasons for the deletion - not notable, few Google hits, advertising - which you obviously do not agree with.  You are welcome to argue that the article is good and necessary, and I see that you have left one comment to try to do so.--Brianyoumans 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you do not decide to go around deleting articles I have written as a form of retaliation. First, that is rather petty; secondly, I think most of my articles are useful ones.  The ones on the Japanese war relocation camps, for instance, are short, but they haven't been up for very long - people may well add content to them.  And the internments themselves were certainly controversial, affected a lot of people, etc., etc... very notable and "encyclopediac" in many ways.  --Brianyoumans 19:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not looking to retaliate, but was hoping to open your eyes to the rather arbitrary way you've gone about this. I'm perfectly happy to see the article improved, and have put in some time this PM trying to do just that. But you're arguing what's essentially a matter of personal opinion, and your piece is no more weighty or interesting. While I would not want to suggest that brand licensing is as historically relevent as wartime prison camps, the impact of the brands discussed in the article is probably more widespread in a daily way. Unless Wikipedia is going to suppress ALL commercial references, then I see no reason not to expose readers to something that impacts their lives in many, often hidden ways. For example, most consumers are unaware that many branded items they buy are not made by the brands, or that licensing increases the price of the items because the manufacturer must pay a royalty to the brand owner.


 * So why don't you suggest ways in which to improve my article and let's do something constructive?
 * I'll try. What Wikipedia is looking for is veriable facts and verifiable claims of notability.  Is your company, for instance, the largest agency in its field, or one of the largest?  The oldest?  Has it verifiably pioneered methods and techniques now widely used? The bit about the Culinary Institute was a good start, but people don't seem to think that simply applying branding to yet another industry was a particularly notable accomplishment.
 * You have kind of a tough job because, while brands are very visible, the business of branding is kind of a behind-the-scenes thing, and I'm not sure that the general internet public - which is the audience the Wikipedia is aimed at - is very interested in it. Wikipedia isn't a compendium of everything about everything - for one thing, that would be impossible to maintain properly.Brianyoumans 00:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See WP:CORP - you might find that helpful. Brianyoumans 00:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Licensing International Expo for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Licensing International Expo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Licensing International Expo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)