Talk:M&A Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the page does indeed fit the criteria for speedy deletion as it is advertising a certain product (IE the journal itself) I still believe that it should not be deleted. While M&A Today is very much a "for-profit" magazine, it's subject matter is so esoteric that anyone who would consider subscribing to it would have already heard about it. Considering the subcription costs $210.00 a year (or around $3 a page) it is highly unlikely that anyone would base their purchase of this journal on this wikipedia reference.

Moreover, this is one of very few sources on the topic of M&A. While being "for-profit" the fact still remains that it is one of a handfull of reliable of academic journals on the subject. Even JSTOR does not have suitable amounts of information on the topic.

At that, M&A Today is quite comparable to JSTOR as they are both academic journals the only difference being that M&A Today's subject area is quite small and thus never recieved the massive amounts of funding that JSTOR did and therefore, requires substription fees to sustain itself and it's editors. However, contributors themselves donate their time and are NOT paid for their academic contributions.

Doesn't matter. Spam is spam. You violated Wikipedia policy by removing the speedy delete notice. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion, follow the established procedures laid out in the message on your talk page. Realkyhick 17:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am new to wikipedia and was unsure of the proceedures for dealing with a speedy deletion.

While it is hard to disagree with the idea that "spam is spam", I find it very hard to believe that an article documenting an academic journal on M&A fits the definition. The purpose of M&A today is to contribute to the academic community, much like wikipedia does. Since it is one of VERY few journals that does this, I find it very hard to believe that a brief article documenting this as a contribution to the M&A section which, "is in need of attention from an expert on the subject" is spam.

First of all, are you somehow associated with this journal? If so, then you have run afoul of conflict of interest guidelines. Second, there's also an issue of notability, as to whether or not this journal is recognized as being notable and/or important in the eyes of other independent, reliable sources. If it isn't notable, then it would also be deleted, even if the article is not blatant advertising. Can you cite reliable sources that at least mention this journal? Realkyhick 19:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that while you requested speedy deletion for this article citing "spam" or "blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article", this has nothing to do with a potential conflict of interest or lack of notability. I would like to cheerfully request that if you do not find this article to be in any violation of the "spam" rule that you would kindly change your query to something a little bit more accurate.

Next, I am not associated with this journal in any way except for my association with M&A in general which I am happy to note, does not fall into conflict of interest guidelines. Considering that I am independant of the journal, there is no reason to suggest that I am not one of those independent, reliable sources. All that aside, I am sure that if the article were allowed to exist for more than one day then other independent, reliable sources would add something to the article, thus fulfilling the intended purpose of wikipedia.

As far as referencing goes, I am still new to the system and am having some technical difficulties with this but rest assured, there will be sourcing for the article in the near future.

Thanks

Looks like you're headed in the right direction with the sources you added (though one needs the link fixed - let me know if I can help). I took the speedy tag down and replaced it with an {{underconstruction}} tag to show that it is a work in progress. Bear in mind you're not out of the woods yet, as the article could still be deleted if notability isn't shown to the satisfaction of editors, but you're getting there. You might want to use a section title other that "Testimonials," though as it sounds a bit promotional. (In case you haven't figured out, we kind of have this thing about people promoting anything on Wikipedia.) Realkyhick 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MandAlogo.jpg

Image:MandAlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)