Julieapeck

Welcome!

Hello, Julieapeck, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Bizfilings, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! I dream of horses @ 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bizfilings

A tag has been placed on Bizfilings 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses @ 19:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Bizfilings

Hi there Julieapeck! I saw that you added a {{hangon}} tag to a page which you created, Bizfilings. This is good, but in the process you removed the tag requesting deletion under CSD A7. Even though there is a hangon on the page, the deletion template should remain there. But don't worry, this doesn't mean that the page is going to get deleted. Make sure you edit the talk page of the page nominated for deletion, located at Talk:Bizfilings, administrators will look at your reason why the page should remain before they decide what to do. Thanks - SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bizfilings

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Bizfilings requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the article (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.

I just left an explanation for why I believe that this subject fits the notability requirements. But there was another "speedy deletion" notice put up immediately after I posted my explanation. Were did those two things overlap? Or have you rejected my explanation? Julieapeck (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Bizfilings

I deleted Bizfilings not on notability grounds, but under Criterion for Speedy Deletion G11, which is for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." I very deliberately did not mention notability problems in my deletion reason, because the article did make an assertion of notability. However, it did also read more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. More information on this is available at WP:AD and WP:NPOV. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as it had a neutral tone, I would not have an issue with it, no. What you may want to so is write a draft of the page in your userspace first (e.g., on your sandbox page), and then move it to the proper title once it's done. This reduces the chances of it being deleted significantly, especially while you're working on it. I can "userfy" the last version of your article to such a page if you would like; that way you don't have to start from scratch. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the article and moved it to User:Julieapeck/BizFilings. If you ever want to get feedback about the article, you can ask at WP:NCHP with a link to your draft. Good luck! This guide may also help you draft the article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors are also required to comply Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not an outlet for corporate PR. According to this Google page cache, a Julie Peck was Vice President of Marketing for the Wolters Kluwer Corporate Legal Services division, of which BizFilings is a business unit. According to her LinkedIn profile, she is now Chief Strategy Officer (and apparently the owner) of Peck Place Consulting, engaged in corporate marketing. Your user name is a close variant of Julie Peck. Are you her? Also, what factual basis do you have for your edit stating that BizFilings is the Number 1 competitor to LegalZoom?[1]—Finell 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional note. Yes, I am the same Julie Peck mentioned above. I no longer work for Wolters Kluwer -- I left there to work for another company which, unfortunately, laid me off earlier this year. Since then, I have started my own small business (Peck Place Consulting), and have joined a community of other small business owners and start-ups. Many of them (including myself) expressed some frustration in figuring out how to maneuver all the requirements of starting a small business, and sifting through a million "fly-by-night" companies proporting to serve the small biz community. We decided it would be a great idea to start identifying some of the small business-focused companies that are actually subsidiaries of large corporations. Many small business divisions/brands do not publicly link themselves to their larger parent brands -- so they can be free to establish different messaging and pricing, etc. As a new entrepreneur, I did need to research the process of incorporation -- which is how I became so familiar with the online incorporation providers (not just BizFilings, but others as well).

I did decide to post the BizFilings page as my first one in this initiative, because I had some level of familiarity with it (as a former WK person) and I felt that I could author with some degree of confidence in the details, etc. Sort of starting with what I know. While at Wolters Kluwer, I also managed the corporate market share research done every 2 years. Those research results showed BizFilings as the second largest online icorporation provider, behind Legal Zoom.

All that said, I don't work for Wolters Kluwer any more. I am writing from the point of view of a small business start-up. However, because my professional background is in corporate marketing -- Writing in a "promotional" way may be built into my DNA. One of my former bosses used to tell me my monthly reports read like a trashy romance novel...

While I think my past connection to Wolters Kluwer may give me some additional knowledge of the company, and some confidence in the details around the founding and aquisition of BizFilings, I do not believe it constitutes a conflict of interest.

What I'd like to do is take another pass at editing this article -- and "neutralizing" it. This is definitely a learning experience for me. I'd like to actually succeed in getting an article successfully published here, and then use what I've learned to publish more as I continue to navigate the small business startup environment.Julieapeck (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

While you may not have a current conflict of interest, your past experiences may still affect your editing somewhat, even if unintentionally. However, having a conflict of interest does not forbid you from editing; it's just something to be aware of, and a good reason for you to seek additional feedback on your article before you move it back to the article space. Just try to read through our policies and guidelines as much as possible, and seek feedback whenever you're unsure about something. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Julieapeck's forthright response. It does appear to me that your past experience doing promotion for BizFilings and other companies did influence the article, because it read like a promo. Normally, when a primarily factual article about a company or product includes some puffery, other editors will revise the article to have a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Articles are only deleted on this ground where the ad-like nature dominates the article, and fixing it would require a total re-write—which was the case with the BizFilings article. Thanks for understanding.—Finell 22:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of LegalZoom

The article LegalZoom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability requirements.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Julieapeck/BizFilings

Ok, I've tidied the article a bit, correcting references, links, etc.

The main problem that I see with it is that it still appears to be promotional, as there are not really any independent, reliable sources of information presented.

Let me go through your references, explaining why I do not think they meet the "independent, reliable sources" criteria:

1. Wiegand, Brian (13 September 2008). "Brian Wiegand Profile". CrunchBase. TechCrunch.

   • Crunchbase is a wiki-style database of Web 2.0 companies, people, and investors: people upload their own information, so it's not an independent source of information

2. "At a Glance". Wolters Kluwer.

   • Wolters Kluwer is the parent company - hence, not independent

3. "Strategic Channel Program". BizFilings.

   • This is from the company's website - so not independent

4. "About Toolkit.com". Toolkit.com.

   • Toolkit is owned by BizFilings, so not independent

5. "Radio Show". Toolkit.com.

   • Again, not independent, as it's toolkit.com

6. "BizFilings' Products and Services". BizFilings.com.

   • Again, not independent, as it's bizfilings.com

Let me go through the "News and Media" section, and explain why these also do not meet the independent or reliable criteria:

1. Kobelski, Karen (General Manager, BizFilings) (08 July 2009). "Today's Tip: Incorporate Online to Save Money". BusinessWeek (Bloomberg).

   • This is written by BizFilings' GM - not independent

2. Pofeldt, Elaine (26 October 2009). "Hot tips for online incorporation". Crain's New York Business (Crain Communications Inc).

   • This might be useful as it isn't written by BizFilings - but to be honest, it doesn't actually provide much information about the company apart from "... BizFilings, a site used for 630 incorporations in the city in the 12 months ended in August"

3. Karen Kobelski, General Manager of BizFilings, Inc. appears on Inside Business to discuss the value of incorporating your business at YouTube (requires Adobe Flash)

   • I'm note sure how reliable "Inside Business" is. The only one I can find on Wikipedia is Inside Business which is an Australian show. Also, youtube on its own cannot be used to show notability - for two reasons in this case: firstly, it's the company's own area of YouTube; secondly, anyone can upload anything to YouTube: in theory, video could be edited before uploading (I'm not saying that happened, but it's why YouTube on its own is not counted as a reliable source)

4. Karen Kobelski answers the question "Should You Incorporate Your Home-Based Business?" on Lifetime Network’s "The Balancing Act" at YouTube (requires Adobe Flash)

   • Similar to Lifetime Network: the only mention I can find for it on Wikipedia is Lifetime_Network - the article doesn't mention "The Balancing Act", and it seems a strange choice for that network to broadcast.

5. "Recession Sparks Rise in Demand for Women-Owned Home-Based Business Incorporation Services". PRNewswire (Redorbit.com). http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1705623/recession_sparks_rise_in_demand_for_womenowned_h

   • This is from a Press Release from BizFilings (hence the "PRNewswire" tag on the site), so it is not independent

6. Ennico, Cliff (25 June 2007). "Ten Really Cool Things I Learned At eBay Live! 2007". Drlaura.com.

   • I'm not sure how "reliable" Drlaura.com or Cliff Ennico are! To be honest, his quote about Bizfilings.com/toolkits.com reads pretty much as if he was copying it from either a press release or a company brochure!

7. (From Press Release). "Build Your Firm Partners with BizFilings". The CPA Technology Advisor (Cygnus Business Media).

   • As it says on the website, this is from a Press Release, so not an independent source

When I am looking for notability, I look at 3 main sources online:

• Google News Archive: I must admit, I can't find any significant coverage here, although I've only had a quick look
• Google Books: Again, nothing stands out as useful here - lots of very minor mentions
• Google Scholar: Again, nothing stands out as useful here - lots of very minor mentions

What really helps to show that a company is notable (which I see as the main problem with the article as it stands) is to have significant coverage in a national/international newspaper or magazine. You might like to read Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for Businesses and Organizations.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Having read your edit summary when you moved the article from your user space to article space, I'm not sure if the "administrator" you are referring to is me or not, but if it is, I'd like to point out that I am not an admin! I am just an ordinary editor like you. If it wasn't me that you were referring to, then ignore this message! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Having read the version of BizFilings, I cannot see much more in the area of significant coverage than there was before. Let me explain:

• In the News and Media section:

1. The first two links are referred to above ("Today's Tip: Incorporate Online to Save Money". BusinessWeek (Bloomberg) - This is written by BizFilings' GM - not independent; "Recession Sparks Rise in Demand for Women-Owned Home-Based Business Incorporation Services". PRNewswire (Redorbit.com) - This is from a Press Release from BizFilings (hence the "PRNewswire" tag on the site), so it is not independent)
2. The "Forbes' Best of the Web" link is a new one, but the link provided didn't go to a valid page - it was just a page with headers, etc, but no content (I tried it in both Internet Explorer and Safari, in case there was a browser-specific problem) - could you possibly find the correct link? However, looking at past issues of "Forbes' BoW", it tends to have very short mentions of a particular website - not major coverage.

• In the References

1. All of them (apart from the NYT one) are mentioned above, and not sufficient to meet the criteria for reliable or independent sources of information - Crunchbase is a wiki-style site, where people upload their own information; the rest are from the company's (or its parent company's) website: hence not independent.
2. The NYT reference: The article contains a single sentence about the Toolkit: When it comes to sorting through financial information, CCH Business Owner’s Toolkit has templates to help examine financial issues as well as other model business documents, checklists and government forms..

Overall, I do not see that this added together counts as significant coverage: most of it comes from the company itself - and the two that don't (the Forbes and NYT) either don't have a link that works to go to the correct page, or it is a single-sentence mention.

As I said above, I did look for significant coverage, and I was unable to find anything that would seem to meet the criteria under either the General Notability Guidelines or the Notability Guidelines for Organizations and Businesses. If you had asked my opinion, I would have said that I do not think that the organisation has been shown to meet the criteria for inclusion, and I would have suggested waiting until you could find sources of information which met the criteria. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of BizFilings

I have nominated BizFilings, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BizFilings. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)