Kent Westlund

Welcome!

Hello, Kent Westlund, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as LuLaRoe, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JustBerry (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LuLaRoe

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on LuLaRoe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. JustBerry (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't find the "Contest this speedy deletion" button. But I don't believe this article meets speedy deletion criteria. Did a human read the article, or was it flagged by a bot? If it was unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, it wouldn't include a large section titled Criticism, listing a half-dozen negative aspects of the company. I have no affiliation with this company, and no reason to advertise it. The reason I created this article was because it is receiving extensive media coverage, yet when I came to Wikipedia to find out what the company is about, I found that it had no wikipedia entry at all. The article was written in good faith, and took some effort to construct, as you can imagine. Kent Westlund (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Kent West: Thanks for reaching out. The speedy deletion button is no longer available because a patrolling admin has already deleted the article from the article mainspace. I reviewed the article, after which admin BU Rob13 deleted the article per G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). From my recollection, the criticisms seemed to overlook any real problems with the company, one of the problems being "explosive growth." Also, the tone of the article was fairly promotional. Further, can you please point out how the company meets Wikipedia's company notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)? --JustBerry (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The subject company is notable; reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it... my article linked to several articles in major publications... http://www.forbes.com/sites/marciaturner/2016/10/18/lularoes-secret-to-becoming-a-direct-sales-powerhouse-facebook-live/ Kent Westlund (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's very discouraging to spend an afternoon working on a contribution, only for it to be deleted near-instantly and without any discussion.Kent Westlund (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Related to the company's growth, the article mentioned overloaded IT systems and delays receiving inventory. I don't think anyone would read that as a compliment. Kent Westlund (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The article also mentioned comparisons of the firm’s business model to that of a pyramid scheme. Doesn't seem like unambiguous advertising. Kent Westlund (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The small criticism section stated such things as fact like "incredible growth" contributed to delays getting inventory and that the company does not meet the definition of the pyramid scheme. It was largely unsourced and included very promotional language throughout. The criticisms section appeared to be an afterthought and written/placed in such a way that it was not at all negative toward the company. It appeared to be there only to make the argument that the article wasn't promotional, even though the entirely unsourced body of the article was filled with overtly promotional language. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The criticisms mentioned were: 1) Pyramid Scheme Comparisons, 2) High Minimum Investment 3) Lack of Financial of Transparency 4) Growing Pains (leading to overloaded IT and shipping delays), 5) Inconsistent Product Sizing, 6) Variable Product Quality. I was careful not to call the firm a pyramid scheme, because it has the same business structure as Amway and other MLM firms.Kent Westlund (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, while I was writing the article I was concerned that I was being too hard on the company and was spending too much time on the various criticisms. In any case, if the article read a bit too positive, shouldn't the article have been flagged as such, rather than being deleted without a trace? I can understand why a Speedy Deletion feature is needed, but surely this isn't the kind of issue it is intended for? Kent Westlund (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My article didn't actually say "incredible growth"... it said "LuLaRoe’s explosive growth in 2015 and 2016 lead to the company struggling to keep up with demand. New and existing consultants have reported difficulty with overloaded IT systems and delays receiving inventory." Forbes magazine said: "The near-startup is on track to hit $1 billion in sales this year – yes, that’s billion with a “b” – and has been growing at an average rate of 25% per month for the last 24 months..." My article was more restrained than Forbes, I think. Kent Westlund (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion continues, perhaps it would be well to remind you about our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure . this are considerable more exact rules than when you first joined WP, so you should review them DGG ( talk ) 07:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions is interesting, but it doesn't apply in this situation because I am an unpaid volunteer, and entirely unaffiliated with the subject company. I infer from your message that my contribution was vaporized because it was incorrectly flagged as a paid edit. Kent Westlund (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So where do I go from here? I feel like half a day of my effort has been flushed, because my work was mistakely assumed to be a paid article. Isn't there supposed to be an assumption of good faith? Kent Westlund (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you really asking us to believe that purely as a volunteer, with no connection to the company, you wrote an article on the firm that included the sentence "LuLaRoe’s fashion consultants now total about 35,000, with thousands more waiting to join the team."? This is pure advertising. If you did it as a volunteer, you nonetheless created advertising for them. The article was deleted as advertising,and would have been deleted as such, regardless of who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a volunteer with no connection to the company. Back in October, a Forbes magazine article said: "To-date, the company has signed up more than 24,000 fashion consultants and an additional 16,000-18,000 are waiting to be added to the team". Pure advertising? Or a relevant factual statement? http://www.forbes.com/sites/marciaturner/2016/10/18/lularoes-secret-to-becoming-a-direct-sales-powerhouse-facebook-live/ Kent Westlund (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If I was a shill for the company, would my article have included the sentence: "Some customers have found LuLaRoe clothing to be disappointing in terms of workmanship; reporting prints that do not line up across seams, thin fabric, tiny holes, and otherwise defective materials." ? Kent Westlund (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Kent, I've restored the article (or am about to, rather) to Draft:LuLaRoe. You will need to extensively provide sourcing for all claims and remove the plainly promotional language throughout the majority of the article before moving it to the mainspace. At this point, its current form is still eligible for deletion under WP:G11, and if substantial changes are not made to it, I or another admin may re-delete it after a reasonable period of time. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks Rob; I will make the changes you have suggested. Kent Westlund (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Kent, that articles was published as part of Forbes, but they do not claim editorial responsibility for it:

"Marcia Layton Turner , CONTRIBUTOR. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." this is an advertorial, and best seen as the perversion of honest journalism--because just as you did, most readers will not pay attention to the disclaimer--even though Forbes put it right at the top, or if they do notice it, will not understand its significance. There is similar content in many otherwise reliable sources--most notably perhaps in the Huffington Post, which we no longer recognize as a reliable source for Biographies. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If that Forbes article is just a paid advertisement then I was taken in. It does seem to be on the gushy side. Kent Westlund (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LuLaRoe (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LuLaRoe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LuLaRoe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LuLaRoe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LuLaRoe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 00:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LuLaRoe (January 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zppix was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LuLaRoe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Kent Westlund, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding [Draft:LuLaRoe]]:

Per SwisterTwister's advice, I've removed the following references that came from regional newspapers: - The Daily Express - The Indianapolis Star - The Times Leader - The Democrat and Chronicle - The Times Herald

I've retained the references from major independent news publications: - Forbes Magazine - The Boston Globe - Business Insider

I've retained the references that highlighted controversies: - Consumer Reports - Pacific Standard - Saving Advice - Racked

I've removed these two reference that don't mention LuLaRoe by name: - USA Today - Federal Trade Commission

I've removed this reference that SwisterTwister called a blog: - Yahoo Style

Kent Westlund (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Pinging addressee. --JustBerry (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LuLaRoe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, you're saying that I need to delete the sections "History: Founding", "Products", "Business Model" and "Sales Methods"? Essentially everything other than the introduction and the list of criticisms?

I'm confused, because the Wikipedia entries for analogous firms e.g. Amway include long sections "History: Founding", "Brands", "Business Model" etc.

Kent Westlund (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LuLaRoe has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LuLaRoe. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LuLaRoe (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DrStrauss was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LuLaRoe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DrStrauss talk 13:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

forbes.com/sites is not a reliable source for facts

Do not keep adding citations to https://www.forbes.com/sites/ to Draft:LuLaRoe. It is not what you think or claim it is. It is not Forbes Magazine. The sites written by contributors rather than Forbes staff are click-bait blogs with no editorial oversight to speak of. They are not reliable sources for facts. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LuLaRoe (April 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Yashovardhan Dhanania was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LuLaRoe and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Yashovardhan (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LuLaRoe has been accepted

LuLaRoe, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kent Westlund. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)