Talk:ContentBridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... The person who has nominated this article for deletion has given the reason on my talk page: "...because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons." I will investigate further to see if the user has posted something more substantive. The ContentBridge article is about a well positioned company with an innovative product and well received product. The article is well references and the firm is notable and serves globally recognized customers. Additionally, the proprietary software behind the product was created as a direct result of the personnel's industry experience. Thus, the personnel are the backbone of ContentBridge. 009o9 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the nominating editor might consider reading, WP:LACK and WP:DLS.009o9 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Article does not meet WP:G11, within the List of criteria, which states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The article is a well referenced compilation of documented facts. There are no promotional passages, nor would the article need to be re-written to find consensus on any specific concerns should one be named.

Notability: Even as a provider in a not so glamorous area of the entertainment industry, ContentBridge has three articles where the software and company name are in the title, the Variety Magazine article is primarily about ContentBridge and the market void that the software fills. There are a few other articles (industry specific) where ContentBridge personnel are invited to speak as content-experts using their titles with ContentBridge as a credential.

Additionally WP:G11, within the List of criteria also states: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." The article describes the subject from a neutral point of view and is therefore not eligible for WP:G11 speedy deletion.

Article does not meet WP:A7, within the List of criteria which states: "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." (emphasis mine) ContentBridge is software, without the ContentBridge software there would be no organization. The first line of the ContentBridge article states: "ContentBridge is a Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Supply Chain Management (SCM) system for the Entertainment industry." Both DRM and SCM systems in the 21st Century are generally understood to be software and the terms Software as a service and Application Program Interface mentioned later in the article always indicates software. Thus, the article does not meet WP:A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you 009o9 (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @009o9: The problem with the article is that it's filled with buzz words and phrases that almost appear to have been taken from a press release for the company. Offhand I'd say that in order to remove concerns about WP:G11 you'd have to completely remove the "key personnel" section of the article and re-write a few sentences of the article. The ones that stood out as reading like a press release are as follows:
"Focusing on the heterogeneous needs of the film, recorded music and music publishing businesses,[3] ContentBridge was introduced as Software as a service (SaaS) for digitial distribution and rights management in 2011."
"Addressing key distribution concerns such as: language localization, varying media content formats, date-sensitive release coordination (Windowing) and royalty accounting."
I'd also re-write this sentence, just because it's fairly clunky.
"Developed in-house by GoDigital, a video on demand distribution company for their in-house needs, Content Bridge LLC. was launched under the umbrella of GoDigital Media Group in 2010, with founding partner and CEO Jason Peterson moving to the helm of ContentBridge."
I'd re-write it like "Content Bridge LLC. was developed in-house by the VOD distribution company GoDigital and was launched in 2010 under the GoDigital Media Group umbrella. GoDigital's founding partner and CEO Jason Peterson took control of the company upon its launch date." That's still a little clunky, but it deals with a lot of the issues with clunkiness- especially since it kind of read like one of those leading type sentences you traditionally see on press releases.
Now as far as notability goes, you will need to prove this via coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the company, its crew members, and anyone else that is involved with the company. Brief, trivial mentions like this one do not count towards notability because it doesn't go into depth about the company itself. It's just mentioned in brief in relation to something else. Also, please keep in mind that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the company being mentioned in relation to a notable thing, nor is it inherited by say, someone in the company winning an award for something that is not related to the company itself. In other words, if the company did not receive the award and the article isn't about ContentBridge itself, then it can't be used to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Tokyogirl79 Between the fact that the subject area is technical and does include terms within digital-rights and cloud based software genres, the article is going to tend to have "buzz-words" as you call them. I believe the writing may seem "clunky" to you because I am trying to avoid injecting WP:OR and ensure WP:IMPARTIAL. The software is proprietary, what it addresses and accomplishes is not. Within the specialty, these "buzz-words" are the common vernacular WP:LACK and I certainly don't see clunky-writing as a reason for a WP:G11 speedy deletion. Thus, the reason it may appear to read like a press release to you, lays within the fact that I (as a paid editor) am extremely limited by the MoS. Other editors are certainly welcome to improve upon the writing style.
Notability:
I believe that you are mistaken on your claim to notability, the Variety article (this one) deals explicitly with the market niche that ContentBridge fills -- and the interview with the CEO is explicitly about that niche.
"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.[1]WP:GNG
Since the firm (ContentBridge) is privately funded and not up for a public offering (that I know of), an article exclusively about any firm would be exclusively aimed at outside investors. Are we able to find an article exclusively about ExxonMobil? No, because there is nothing interesting about a firm if you exclude the product and investment returns, or potential. The first references in the ExxonMobile article is about Management personnel and the second reference is about investment.
IMHO With notability established, this exceeds the WP:SIGNIFICANCE criteria in WP:A7
WP:NNC Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article The components of the firm, primarily software and personnel do not have to meet the notability claims that govern stand-alone articles and lists, but as can be seen in the reference section, the personnel are mentioned in publications of their own accord and/or their association with ContentBrigde. However, I can see where moving the comments from Peterson's keynote speech to the Overview section might improve the article. Thank you009o9 (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the Variety source is still considered to be a trivial source at best, as it only mentions the company in passing. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the company being related to notable ventures and it isn't even inherited by the parent company being notable. Individual branches must pass notability guidelines in and of themselves. The company doesn't have to be the sole focus of the article, but it shouldn't be only mentioned in passing- as is the case with the Variety article. The only time we can really use brief mentions to show notability is when the mention is in relation to something very, very big like a notable award or an accomplishment that is so exceedingly notable (as in the first person to scale Mt Everest level of accomplishment) that it would give notability. The other sources are a bit troublesome since many of them appear to be taken directly from press releases and I'll be honest, would be disregarded by a lot of editors if this came up at AfD. As far as the personnel goes, I would again recommend that you remove the information because it comes across as extremely promotional and even though you've quoted NCC, the personnel section still has to follow the basic guidelines of neutrality, due weight, and so on. The bios appear to be promotional and they need to be edited down for tone. The section also appears to put undue weight upon the people listed, as very, very few company related articles need to even have a full listing of their top staff. This is kind of why we advise against paid editors being the sole/predominant editor to an article they're getting paid to create as you were probably instructed to list the bios and accomplishments of each person. Please understand, the bio section is working against the article per WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:UNDUE and should just be removed entirely. As it is, if this came up to AfD I can see a lot of people arguing to delete for the promotional content alone, so please remove the content or at least just make it into a list. I know that you've been given instructions on what to write and I've even heard that some companies threaten to withhold payment if the article doesn't contain exactly what they want, but you've got to understand that this article has very serious issues that need to be fixed. Trying to argue that it should be left "as is" only works against the article because the issues still remain and are still elements that could make the article require deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You've made a couple of guesses, but let me explain why the decision to create a ContentBridge article was made.

  1. When an organization reaches a certain plateau a Wikipedia page is an expectation, not for advertising, but because the Wikipedia has become a business tool that decision makers are comfortable with; additionally, the Wikipedia's open-editing allows a "warts and all" format, which is quite different from a static webpage.
  2. Because these entirely separate entities (GoDigital and ContentBridge) were hatched under the same startup incubator(GoDitigal Media Group), there is some overlap in the upper management positions, it is important to fully disclose that overlap. Rather than parent-child, GoDigital and ContentBridge are technically sisters, that relationship need to be denoted in a more prominent place than one of many webpages.
  3. Some of the key personnel may also have outside, or related vested positions, my hope was to introduce the personnel, give a reason why they were hired, give their credentials and disclose any other notable vested positions that they may hold (again this goes to disclosure, not promotion).
  4. The Wikipedia is the most logical place to collect artifacts about a firm that is gaining historical prominence.

The largest content providers in the world are already direct customers of ContentBridge for rights/content management and some also happen to be GoDigital customers for VOD also. Due to the fact that ContentBridge is already doing business with all of the major players in the market, WP:PROMOTIONAL is really not an issue here. ContentBridge, GoDigital and GoDitigal Media Group are completely separate entities, Peterson is also the CEO of GoDitigal Media Group, there is no attempt to "inherit" anything, but it is important to clarify this distinction.

I guess we are not seeing the Variety interview in the same light, the way I read it is that Mr. Peterson was approached for the quote because he is the CEO of ContentBridge, a major player in the industry. In the 2014 Billboard Magazine article he is misidentified as the CEO of GoDigital (a position he handed off in 2010), and he is again speaking to the rights/content management issue (i.e., ContentBridge), but because his position is misidentified, I have not offered it toward notability over what is basically little more than a typo.

Without contacting a knowledgeable representatives of a firm, how does a journalist gain information about interesting companies and their products? I don't ever recall reading a quote like: Google says, "xzy is good for abc." Quotes are (almost) always attributed to representative personnel. Regards, 009o9 (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are looking for a reference where ContentBridge is exclusively discussed, that would be on the This Week in Startups interview. This Week in Startups ranks a #5 on Google PageRank and is Alexa #44,312 in the US and 105,187 in the world. Jason Calacanis declared the "pitch" and product a winner back in 2010. 009o9 (talk) 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Being asked to make a quote about something does not mean that the company is notable. It's entirely possible that he was asked for other reasons. Even if it was for the company, that still doesn't make the company notable and it's still a trivial source. Upon looking for sources and looking at the sources on the article, I can't find anything to show that this company is ultimately notable so I'm nominating it for deletion. Just because the original parent company has an article doesn't mean that all related companies require an article. Not every company is notable, regardless of how much money they make or how often they're mentioned in passing. That sort of thing might make it more likely that they'll gain coverage but it is not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications made to article

I've made some changes to the article to address the suggestion of "clunkiness" -- part of the problem may have been not enough verbiage about my effort to disclose that GoDigital and ContentBridge are parented by the same incubator group, but are now completely separate entities. An understanding of parental relationships are generally very welcome information in business circles. I broke up some sentences, moved the keynote speech to support the Overview section and removed a few descriptive words.009o9 (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Article tags

Written "like" and advertisement?

Concerning the existing template:advert on ContentBridge

I try to consider myself as an ego-less writer, so I'm probably not the one to judge concerning writing style, but I can't find a passage in the article that is not simply descriptive and backed up with a reference. The name of the company is ContentBridge, the name of the software is also ContentBridge, do I need to split the article? One article for the software and another for the organization? Or would it be okay to describe both in this single article?

Any thoughts? 009o9 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's general notability guideline

Concerning the existing template:notability on ContentBridge

Here again, I'm not finding anything non-conforming with the article in either Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies), nor Wikipedia:Notability sans the determination as to which portion(s) of the text is leading someone to think the article is "like" an advertisement.

ContentBridge is already well established and provides services for the largest content providers in the world (YouTube, iTunes, Hulu, NetFlix, Comcast etc.) -- who would they be trying to advertise to? IMHO, I believe that WP:OBTOP and WP:OBSCURE apply here: "An obscure topic is a topic that is only of interest to a small number of people, such as those in the subject's field, teachers, or fans. Obscure topics are perfectly welcome to have articles on Wikipedia, provided that notability guidelines are met."

  • Notability

"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.[1]WP:GNG (emphasis mine)

(Official press release reprinted by Reuters -- I don't know if paid or if Reuters considers them newsworthy filler.)

These are the references, published by independent sources, that I found on short notice from the reference section. I'm told there are more developments in progress. If I need to sift through the other references to see if they could go to notability on the article, please let me know. 009o9 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Edited section -- added Billboard Magazine reference with explanation on mis-credited credentials. 009o9 (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)further editing to the section009o9 (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated content for tone

Further revised version

Completing merge per AfD consensus -- details

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI