Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Amplify (distributor) (or alternative target). This would appear to be the route preferred by the majority of commenters Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply

ContentBridge

AfDs for this article:
ContentBridge (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this article for deletion because ultimately I can't see where the company passes WP:CORP. I'm also concerned about the promotional aspect of the article, along with the staff section that I feel gives WP:UNDUE weight on the staff members' accomplishments in general, but would like a full AfD. I came across it via a speedy for WP:A7 (notability) and WP:G11 (advertising). There are sources to show that the company does have an assertion of notability, so it's being brought here. While there are sources on the article, they don't really go into depth about the company to where it would ultimately pass our notability guidelines and most are primary in some way or another (either for the company or primary websites for past ventures of staff members.) I've included a rundown of the sourcing below. The article is promotional, but I'd like for this to run through a full AfD rather than to have someone nominate it for a speedy. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page of the article prior to bringing it to AfD.

Sourcing
  1. Primary source, which cannot show notability as it is the official website.
  2. Press release, so it's also primary.
  3. YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis.
  4. Another press release
  5. Company website, primary.
  6. Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge.
  7. [ http://www.contentbridge.tv/products Company website, primary.
  8. IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
  9. Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote.
  10. Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy.
  11. Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability.
  12. Routine database listing for a staff member
  13. Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section.
  14. Routine staff bio on a primary website
  15. Primary source
  16. Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended.
  17. Routine database listing
  18. Primary source
  19. Press release
  20. This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release.
  21. Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.

The only usable source on the article is the Variety article, which is trivial at most. A search for further sourcing did not bring up enough to show notability per WP:CORP and the only somewhat usable source I found is this mention, but that's not enough to show notability. Ultimately this just fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I also came to this article because it was tagged for CSD. A7 is not applicable as there is a claim for notability. G11 is in my opinion borderline, because deletion of the section with bios would go a long way to making the thing less promotional. I agree with Tokyogirl that AfD is the appropriate venue for this. The (paid) creator of this article is strangely unwilling to take good advice on the article's talk page. Given that they are paid for this but we are not, I didn't feel compelled to edit the article to make it less promotional. Anyway, now that we are here, the sole question to answer is not whether the article is promotional (because that can be remedied by good editing), but whether it meets WP:CORP. The detailed nom above makes it abundantly clair that this fails bot CORP and GNG. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (not sure if I get a vote) I am the paid editor of ContentBridge, my disclosure is on the talk page. An assumption has been made that I am getting paid for this time which is not the case. First, it appears that at this point that there is consensus on the removal of the personnel details to a bare list, despite my contention that the officer's outside commercial interests may be relevant to the reader. As for notability some of the sources listed above are self-sourced but go to the personnel section WP:NNC, my understanding is that these entries need not be notable (only article and lists) and the references are provided as a convenience to the reader. ('m sure that we are all well aware that the Reference sections are not indexed so there's no other reason include these references.) What I can't understand is how the following list of sources can be belittled towards claims of notability WP:ORGIN. And the references (provided below) clearly exceed WP:OBTOP and WP:OBSCURE.
References relevant to ContentBridge notability
In my experience, a corporate officer in speaking engagements and interviews is always acting on the behalf of his employer and corporate officers go to great lengths to ensure the occasions when their comments do not reflect the views of their employers. Peterson has been the CEO for the ContentBridge effort even prior to the formation of the LLC, as the former CEO of GoDigital. WP:GNG
Since we appear to have a consensus on the personnel, I'm going to go reduce the Personnel section to a bare list and see if that alleviates the perception WP:G11 (advertising). 009o9 ( talk) 20:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I've removed (commented) the Key personnel section from the ContentBridge article, keeping a list would just duplicate what is already in the infobox. At this point it looks like the article would read better without a Contents box and remove the section headings and just make it one long lede so the early history does not need to be restated in the Overview section. 009o9 ( talk) 20:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
My apologies, I overlooked that I had GoDigital, rather than GoDigital Media Group listed as the parent in the articles's infobox. ContentBridge and GoDigital are entirely independent sister firms, launched under the GoDigital Media Group startup incubator -- I apologize that I hadn't caught this typo sooner. 009o9 ( talk) 21:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The problem is, most of those sources are primary or appear to have been taken directly from a press release. I don't see where there has been any true, independent coverage of the company to where they'd pass notability guidelines. Have you looked at the outline of the sourcing that I posted? Here's an updated one, since some of the sourcing was removed and one was added:
Updated list of sourcing
  1. Press release, so it's also primary.
  2. Routine listing of an event that one of the ContentBridge staff members was invited to. This would be trivial or primary at best as it is not actual in-depth coverage and it's expected that staff members of a successful company will be invited to various things, so it's not a show of notability for the company- especially since the company is not mentioned. Even if it was, the site is kind of dodgy.
  3. Routine database listing at the New York Times for a staff member, one of several similar things at various sites. Database entries like this are trivial or primary at best and cannot show notability.
  4. Routine database listing for a staff member
  5. Primary source
  6. Routine staff bio on a primary website
  7. Link to a primary website for something one of the staff members was included with. Please note that this has nothing to do with ContentBridge and is just used to bolster up the staff member section.
  8. Primary source
  9. Appears to be a routine listing for an event the staff member attended.
  10. Routine database listing
  11. Home Media Magazine source that appears to be taken fairly directly from a press release
  12. Primary source
  13. Primary source
  14. YouTube Video. This is probably one of the few usable-ish sources, as it's an episode of This Week In Startups", which is run by Jason Calacanis.
  15. Another press release
  16. Variety. This is at best trivial, as the article does not focus on ContentBridge and only quotes someone from the company in relation to something that is not specific to ContentBridge.
  17. Primary source
  18. IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
  19. IFPI report that does not mention the company at all.
  20. Billboard article that also does not mention the company. It quotes someone within the company, but the company itself is not mentioned. Notability is not inherited by the company having people who may or may not have individual notability, nor is notability given by one of the people within the company being someone that the media would go to for a quote.
  21. Press release
  22. This one is an actual article, but it just seems like it's taken liberally from a press release.
  23. Primary source ContentBridge is a member of the Media & Entertainment Services Alliance, so MESA would have an interest in writing about their members in a favorable manner.
I honestly don't see where WP:CORP has been proven. The sources are all either primary or trivial and I haven't seen where any new coverage has been added that would firmly show notability. While there are a lot of links to primary and trivial sources on the article, having a lot of trivial and primary sourcing does not mean that a company is notable, as no amount of trivial/primary sourcing can take the place of actual coverage in reliable sources. In other words, don't take an abundance of sources on the article as proof of notability- sometimes what seems to be proof of notability is actually just a ton of sourcing that can't be used to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@Tokyogirl79 I see you are citing "primary" (references) or "trivial," to notability. I'm going to assume you mean WP:QUESTIONABLE when you say trivial because WP:TRIVIAL has nothing to do with notability.
The primary sourced references are not offered toward notability as you can see in my original response and list. The primary references support other facts about the organization that are not relevant to notability. This policy is plainly written in the title of WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. I have refrained from offering any (known) self-originating material for notability in my list, anything filed under "Press release" sections of the magazine(s), including a reprint of a press release by Reuters an organization which clearly maintains editorial control. However, I can't find a policy or guideline that restricts an independent author from paraphrasing press release and publishing that work under her byline.
WP:QUESTIONABLE Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Again, WP:TRIVIAL is not specific to notability so I presume you meant WP:QUESTIONABLE. I don't see where you have proven your (moving) case that the publishers I've offered toward notability have a poor reputation or are lacking editorial oversight. Additionally, when a corporate officer is speaking publicly, it is presumed that she is representing the views of the organization unless a disclaimer is provided that the view is inconsistent with or contrary to the organization's view. In fact, here is some boiler plate that is generally common to the vast majority of Policies and Procedures manuals for organizations: Remember that in responding to the media, you can be seen as representing and speaking for the university. Personal opinions should be clearly and carefully identified as such. In cases where the corporate officer's position is named in the article, the content clearly represents the face of the organization, the onus is your to prove otherwise. In the case of the [Billboard Magazine]] article, where the CEO is mistakenly credited to his former position, I'm sure that I can get a reputable publisher like Billboard to correct their mistake and I am contacting them directly.
A lot of magazines have subscribers and a lot of magazines serve niche topics WP:OBTOP, just because you are unfamiliar. with them is not proof that the publisher has a "poor reputation" or "no editorial oversight."
Finally, we have a subjective claim of WP:G11, but the policy on this is on Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION for which there are five subtopics. I assume the objection here is in number 5 which reads in part Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. If there is subjective or biased style or puffery in my writing, please point it out to me, as I see nothing rises to the level of WP:G11 and I have already made changes that may have significantly altered the context of the article.
References relevant to ContentBridge notability
List toward notability provided again for convenience 009o9 ( talk) 18:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Hounding and retaliation

Irrelevant verbiage and insinuations (besides Too Many Words) hidden behind the veil of courtesy. Drmies ( talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have been notified that there has been direct retaliation against an editor who voted Keep. User_talk:009o9#Question_about_WikiHounding

Apparently, the AfD procedure was usurped, with blanking and redirects on two of the (Keep) voter's articles, obviously taken directly from the editor's contributions list. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding While investigating, I have come to realize that 100% of the editors involved with the deletion effort in discussion here (including the speedy) are administrators and are in contact with each other in some form. I am also cognizant that the deletion nominations are likely the direct result of my compliance with the Foundation's rules on disclosing paid editing. (A reference to paid editing is made in virtually every communication.) I expected problems resultant from disclosure, from those who will not tolerate paid-editing. This incident seems to confirm the expectation that very few WP:COI and WP:PAY editors will be willing to disclose their positions and adopt Foundation policy, even if they are perfectly capable of NPOV writing.

This is just a guess, but by blanking and redirecting (instead of using the AfD process), if the editor did not remove the internal links on the parent page, they will now be circular references to themselves. Likely not a problem for the Wikipedia servers, but the reader will surely be confused when they have followed a circular redirect and end up reloading content, but going nowhere. 009o9 ( talk) 21:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I've said my piece on the sources and there has been precedent at AfD where we consider news coverage trivial if it has been predominantly taken from a press release. I outlined the sources a second time because ultimately there have been people who will come to AfD and state an argument without actually looking at the sources because they'll assume that a lot of sources means that some of them must show notability, which isn't the case here. And again, the Billboard mention is trivial because the article isn't about the company itself. As far as the other editor blanking the articles goes, he didn't blank them- he redirected them, which is fully within his rights to do. If an article has issues with notability and an editor cannot find sources, it is reasonable for them to WP:BEBOLD and redirect to an article as opposed to putting it through the deletion process. I do not see where either article ( Bytemarks Café or Albert Okura: The Chicken Man with a 50 Year Plan) was put up for AfD, so there wasn't any usurping. If the editor wants, they can request that it be run through a formal AfD process. Now as far as you saying that myself or RandyKitty are hounding anyone out of malice or retribution, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I do have to add one thing- the thing about your paid editing is that there was concern over your initial reaction to my recommendations over the article and my comments over the coverage. The advice I gave you on the article's talk page and the stuff I've posted here is something that you will get from pretty much any editor that is experienced with editing and reliable sources, yet you tried to argue that the promotional staff bio section should remain and that the trivial sources were enough to assert notability. The thing that concerned myself and others was how you approached coverage in reliable sources, as it didn't seem that you really understood WP:RS very well. That's troublesome with a COI editor, as paid editors are expected to know our policy on coverage in reliable sources very, very well and while they are paid to upload articles on to Wikipedia, they're also expected to abide by our editing and notability policies. We've had paid editors that have not only been transparent about their COI, but also followed our policies to a T, so it is possible to be a paid editor and not receive harassment. It's just that we've had a lot of paid editors (I'd say anywhere from 75-90%) that have come on here and disregarded policies or tried to twist them to make it appear that something met guidelines, so people are understandably cautious when it comes to paid editors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
@User:Tokyogirl79 I will always respect those who give me inline help and I did do some rearranging on the ContentBridge article based directly from your suggestions and I thank you. (I contend the writing is factual, some passages needed work on flow, which did tone it down.) I was trying to work with you on resolving the article heading template tags, when you brought the declined speedy to AfD.
Let's put aside your --rule of thumb about many references-- aside for a moment and just concentrate on notability, which appears to be comprised of "deep coverage", "multiple independent sources" and "significant coverage" of the topic (more than trivial but need not be the main topic).
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. (...) Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. WP:CORPDEPTH
I have an 11 minute and 15 second Official YouTube channel interview with Jason Calacanis of This Week in Startups a Google PageRank #5 web magazine. The interview/pitch is exclusively on the ContentBridge topic and just prior to the LLC founding. This article/video affords plenty of information to write an article that is more than a brief incomplete stub -- and is from a reliable source. Now, let's examine the WP:GNG.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that 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
The topic at hand is "ContentBridge, Media Supply Chain Solutions" (not simply ContentBridge), which is taken directly from the corporate logo. In the Variety and Billboard Magazine articles, the CEO of ContentBridge is invited to speak about media supply chain solutions. In the 851 word Billboard Magazine article, 154 words (18% of the article) are attributable to Jason Peterson, the CEO of ContentBridge, speaking to media supply chain solutions. Our "topic" is ranking right up there with Jason Mraz and JJ Lin who are in the title of the article, but barely mentioned in the article. Additionally, none of the other 58 keynote speakers are quoted in the article. Likewise, in the 321 word Variety Magazine article, the ContentBridge CEO is the only one of many to be quoted with 137 words (43%) attributable to CEO Peterson/ContentBridge. The significance is that ContentBridge was contacted and known for subject expertise, the fact that a person with his own notability agreed to make the on the record statements is irrelevant, because if lower-level personnel had made these statements all notability go to ContentBridge. So, in wrapping up this portion, the deep coverage is gleaned from the This Week in Startups the significant coverage, the multiple independent sources are the internationally known This Week in Startups, Billboard Magazine, Variety Magazine and several lesser known trade-specific magazines. Notability has been established here, three ways from Sunday.
  • If your friends with administrative privileges are going to search for AfD candidate articles, they should refrain from voting in AfD discussions and concentrate on uncontested speedy deletions. It also reeks of impropriety and retribution when an administrator searches an editor's contributions, looking for something to punish them for their vote. This used to be called stalking, but has recently been renamed to Wikihounding because stalking has real life consequences. (Incidentally, creating those circular redirect references you say are perfectly within the guidelines would make outstanding targets for DDoS attacks.)
  • It is off-putting, that in every conversation I've found, with you discussing ContentBridge, I can't recall one where you have not mentioned that I have a paid declaration. The fact that an editor is paid is irrelevant in a notability discussion, mentioning it when you invite someone to participate in AfD tends to show a presumption of malice to induce motivation. Everybody has some sort of COI, otherwise nothing would get written and every reader (with an ounce of sense) is aware of this.
  • One thing I've learned about writing is that it is far more likely for an editor to have a COI about an artist that they like, a candidate or a cause that they support than it is with writing for paying client, clients have no idea what is in the MoS and the guidelines. The problem with paid writing, is bending over backwards to avoid the preconceived notion of advertising as the motive and article flow. I can honestly tell you, the internet (search engine) facing side of the Wikipedia is inconsequential for most corporations. Building their history and trustworthiness (open editing) is the reason they are here. 009o9 ( talk) 08:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Darn! You found me out. Yep, I'm a notorious wikihounder/stalker. And ever since I passed my RFA, I have been suffering from delusions of grandeur. Don't worry too much about the latter, though, because once the new meds that my shrink prescribed kick in, that should be better. As for the hounding, if you have problems with any edits I made, please report them at WP:ANI, so that they finally will indefinitely block me and WP will be a better places for you and your skeleton pal. But leave all those walls of text out of this AfD, because that discussion doesn't belong here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with the articles on GoDigital and Amplify (distributor), and possibly also Variance Films, under the title Go Digital Media Group. The Group is, according to its own website, not a startup incubator, but a holding company. As far as I can decipher it, it is basically the holding company for GoDigital, and its spinoffs. Content Bridge is simply one of them , a spin-off for a supporting product developed in-house; similarly for Amplify. Both articles are in my opinion quite promotional, as is any article that goes to a significant extent into the bio of multiple corporate officers, and tries to list them in the lede paragraph, or one that mentions the individual films distributed by the company. (As I understand it distribution company is one that buys the right to distribute the film, as distinct from a production company that finances and organizes the work on the film. A production company can have a contributing artistic role; a distributor does not.) The same might be true for the article on [[Amplify] .another of the related spin-offs--it should be merged also. There might possibly be enough material for an article on Peterson. That the head of a company is frequently quoted by newspapers on general topics related to their industry can sometimes contribute towards notability for the individual, to the extent they show status as an expert. To the extent those articles are press releases about his own firm's work, they are not independent, and of course in an industry depending on publicity, there can be a fuzzy line there. The head of a sufficiently major company can also be notable on that basis, but I think Logan Mulvey rather than Peterson is the head of the combined operation (The article on him needs checking also)
FWIW, I was notified about this afd, so I can be added to the list of co-consipirators, tho, as I often do, I have proposed my own solution, which seems to be different from theirs'.
I have looked at the other articles involved. When I see dubious articles , I always look to see what else the editor might be doing. The two merges were entirely proper--if not merged, they would have surely been deleted. Yellow Green Beret: Stories of an Asian-American Stumbling Around U.S. Army Special Forces (series) is a self-published book held in only one library. I have nominated the article, an extremely detailed description for deletion as G11 & will certainly use AfD if necessary (FWIW,, Kirkus, will, if paid, publish a review for any self-published book, and is no longer reliable. I will probably nominate FLOW MMA also at afd. these days The nature of the arguments for keeping the article shows sufficient COI that there would be precedent for disregarding them altogether, but we should nonetheless go with the references. If I can identify more related articles, I will look at them also. DGG ( talk ) 12:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I have no problem with a merge into other pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • So we've come full circle, a GoDigital Digital Media Group article was originally desired, but I declined because the investment organization (GoDigital Media Group) doesn't have the press and couldn't see how a simple interest in a group of separate LLCs would justify an article. (Additionally, I've never seen an article of a group of corporations, based upon common shareholders.) My guess is that we will wind-up back in AfD discussing an article split for notability. Jason Peterson is the current CEO of GoDigital Media Group and ContentBridge, Logan Mulvey succeeded Peterson at GoDigital, when he moved laterally to nurture ContentBridge in 2010. This information was documented in the Key personnel section, and a major reason for doing the ContentBridge article was to disclose, in a conspicuous place, the overlap in the duties of some of the corporate officers serving both ContentBridge and GoDigital (aka some primary refs). The GoDigital, Amplify (distributor) and Variance Films articles are not my works, other than some half sentences wikilinking back to the ContentBridge article. The dust is still settling on the GoDigital and Variance Films merger and I have not been engaged those topics, but they probably are on my watchlist. 009o9 ( talk) 19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) reply
(1) "a major reason for doing the ContentBridge article was to disclose, in a conspicuous place, the overlap in the duties of some of the corporate officers serving both ContentBridge and GoDigital " -- is this the function of a writer of an encyclopedia article or a press agent? DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
(2) "to nurture" a company is not encyclopedic language, but promotional jargon.
(3) It's not exactly that they have "stockholders in common" but they are all operating arms of the same company, which apparently assigns its executives to whichever one is appropriate at the time.. We usually do merge in subsidiaries.
(4) I think you would do well to confine your editing on these articles, or a combined article, to their talk pages. Having commented here, I cannot take action as an administrator, but if you continue to edit them in mainspace, I will recommend at least a topic ban. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
(1) I went ahead and double checked my understanding of the term, "en·cy·clo·pe·di·a enˌsīkləˈpēdēə/noun a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically." Is there some constraint, that I don't know of, against embracing the goals of both Wikipedia and the subject? I am an independent researcher and data analyst, not a press agent - the disclosure of overlap in the management goes to WP:BALANCE it is important because firms have many customers in common.
(2) I've seen a lot more colorful terms on discussion pages. Did I use the word "nuture" in article space?
(3) I wasn't aware of that and have never noticed such an article.
(4) I would not have edited the article at all if it were not for what appeared to be consensus from everyone involved at the time and allowed under Non-controversial edits 1 and 5. WP:LUC Whoever edited the article last and left it in such poor shape hasn't spoken here yet, without a consensus from those involved here, I don't even feel comfortable cleaning up those unfinished edits. 009o9 ( talk) 04:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. None of the 16 references seems to provide significant coverage about this company from independent reliable sources. I don't know what the article looked like earlier - from the comments above I guess it must have been even more promotional than it is now. But it still devotes an entire paragraph to a completely irrelevant speech by the CEO. Also there is a "corporate milestones" table which is trivial and largely unsourced. In any case, it's not the writing, it's the lack of sources actually about the company that dooms this article IMO. No amount of rewriting can make up for a subject that doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORP. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Oh, and if anyone can come up with a logical merge to a subject that IS notable, I would certainly support that. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I've rewritten for tone, removing the section headings seems to allow better organization/flow. See the talk page. Talk:ContentBridge#Updated_content_for_tone Regards 009o9 ( talk) 04:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, the proposed version is an improvement. However: the paragraph about Peterson's speech is not directly pertinent & the refs should not be used to drag in quotes from him; the name of the software is used too often (try "it" as a replacement); key people other than the ceo is excessive detail for most companies; "componentized" is jargon (there are several ways of saying the same thing in English); "solution" is jargon, but if used at all is appropriate only to a combined hardware-software package; and the corporate milestone section needs to be removed (the precise date each customers adopted it is excessive detail) -- & not changed to hidden test (hidden text in an article fails the requirements for accessibility); I've rewritten it as "Further Revised Version" (the refs need some further cleanup) DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Your version looks fine to me with the exception(s) that ContentBridge is a complete/custom "solution." It is Software as a Service, sitting on a private cloud (so hardware and Comm is included); it has an API, and (I believe) an internal (corp) network version. (There is also an option for a completely verbal telephone arrangement.) "The software can be divided up" is not really accurate, the film, recorded music and music publishers each have their own "customs," but there is no industry standard per se, so componentized (or modular), reflects the way the software was designed. Finally, the CEO was speaking on behalf of the corporation, the corporation's industry focus seemed relevant at the time. I'll have a look at trimming the remaining unused references in your edit. Thanks 009o9 ( talk) 07:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I fixed the broken/references added the Billboard and Variety references in at appropriate passages. The lede is still wrong, ContentBridge does not supply "encoding software" they supply "encoding solutions" (end to end solution -- the software is not for sale) and I believe I used that term "encoding solutions," so that I would not be taking directly from one of the references. I can live with the "can be divided up" verbiage, but it's not accurate, would prefer "modular" if you still have a problem with "componentized", which is accurate. Talk:ContentBridge#Further_revised_version Regards, 009o9 ( talk) 08:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\  talk / 05:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

There is a version being discussed on the talk page at Talk:ContentBridge#Further_revised_version Regards, 009o9 ( talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Is everybody clear on the fact that 'GoDigital' and 'GoDigital Media Group' are not the same entity? So just as GoDigital Media Group's other assets did not factor into the GoDigital - Variance Films business-merger to form Amplify, Content Bridge LLC's assets were also unaffected. The only article-merge that remotely makes any sense is under the start-up (incubator) firm GoDigital Media Group, but even then, I don't see how the leap is made without inheritance. GoDigital has absorbed many other firms without a name change, but the name change to Amplify indicates that GoDigital Media Group's interest in the firm has been diminished.
A merger of GoDigital and Variance Films into Amplify (distributor), leaving redirects, makes perfect sense to me, but ContentBridge (Content Bridge LLC) is not a part of that asset group. 009o9 ( talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC) reply
I'm not the least clear it's separate--it seems to be a spinoff sharing the same officers at various times, and presumably the same corporate control. I don't see a company's name change as necessarily indicating anything. i do not think GDMediaGroup is a true start up incubator in any sense--it seems rather to be a holding company--what has it sponsored besides this group of related firms? DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
"GoDigital Media Group (“GDMG”) is a media and technology incubator and early stage venture capital fund. Founded in 2005, its portfolio companies are recognized industry leaders in the monetization of music, movie, and television assets. GDMG’s operating businesses include:" [3]
  • Cinq Music – 360 degree distribution, protection, and collection services for recording artists
  • GoDigital – Full service distribution of over 1500 motion pictures through every window from theaters to nearly 500 million homes around the world on dozens of digital platforms such as iTunes, Amazon, & Netflix
  • AdShare– Monetization of audience engagement online for over 2.8 million copyrights including an MCN on YouTube with over two billion consumer impressions per month
  • ContentBridge Systems – A leading provider of digital supply chain solutions and technologies to the media industry 009o9 ( talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
GoDigital Media Group was founded a full three years before GoDigital. Did Mulvey bring the idea to GDMG for incubation/financing and then call it 'GoDigital' -- likely but I don't know. "Mulvey co-founded GoDigital in 2008 as a student at LMU." [4] 009o9 ( talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Changing the corporate name (GoDigital to Amplify) is quite significant, it means that the firm being acquired was not just another weakling to be absorbed out of bankruptcy as some of the others may have been. It looks like Mulvey was retained at the top, but other changes occurred in upper management. IMHO It is very risky to change your brand (corporate name), think of all of the copyrights that have to be changed for starters and the inconvenience to the customer of having to learn the new name of their vendor/supplier. Just having to look the new name up, gives the customer(s) a chance to discover the competitor's offerings. 009o9 ( talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete I don't see anything in the resources that attests to notability. That Reuters announces a new CEO generally just means that they got the press release. The use of the press release from the company and sourcing to the company's web page are actually poor reference practices and should not be used. If all of the poorly sourced info in the article were removed, there would be no article. (Yes, I'm looking at the version on the talk page.) In fact, I'm having a hard time understanding what the content of the article is, other than to say that this company exists. There's just no there here. The article really should be removed, and if the company becomes the next Facebook or Google, then there will be reliable sources talking about it and an article will be justified. LaMona ( talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ContentBridge&oldid=1068883775"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE