Talk:CLSA

Untitled

I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the notability criteria for Organizations and companies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy.

Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, articles with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist.

The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a {{prod}} that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a {{db-inc}} tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7).

I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author, Gnome84 (talk · contribs), will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

Other experienced editors: Please see the Draft protocol to minimize friction from hasty deletions, and try to keep the proposed and speedy deletion processes from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is

Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!

In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.

Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author, Gnome84 (talk · contribs) ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as one of the Administrators to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a stub article.

It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)

I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the proposed and speedy deletion processes, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved. —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Note: This article is a recreation after prior deletion by PROD ... it's not as if this is an inexperienced user creating their first article; it is part of a history of previously deleted articles associated with Jing Ulrich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in which several editors have been involved, including BTjian (talk · contribs) and Breezer84 (talk · contribs), to name just a few. —72.75.70.147 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

References added - Notability Established.Gnome84 04:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has the hallmarks of some kind of corporate propaganda, undoubtedly by someone employed by the company. Also it seems to be a work in progress now for years with numerous empty sections. Shouldn't this page be deleted or severely edited? Jabalong (talk · contribs) 3:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CLSA. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928024504/http://www.financeasia.com/print.aspx?CIID=67275 to http://www.financeasia.com/print.aspx?CIID=67275

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)