User talk:Marklane0913

Welcome!

Hello, Marklane0913, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Architecture Profession

The article Enterprise Architecture Profession has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise architect/architecture

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Enterprise architect do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Marcel, Please consider this appeal, perhaps let me explain and you can help acheive the goal. CAEAP is not SPAM, it is a non-profit advocacy organization for the professionalization of Enterprise Architecture with meaningful articles about enterprise architecture organizations, enterprise architects -- a benefit to all enterprise architecture organizations, enterprise architects, and the public. The link does meet the Wikipedia guidelines for external links in the “What should be linked section” (see below). The Enterprise Architect Professionals, (our members are asking the link be recognized by Wikipedia as external source of information for ""Enterprise Architecture"" and ""Enterprise Architects"")

How does an external article from IBM get included but article from the professional organization (CAEAP) that supports the professionals of Enterprise Architecture not get included?

Guidelines for external links +++ Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. +++ Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. +++ Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. +++ Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Please consider this appeal and we do appriciate the help. Thanks Marcel for helping.

Marklane0913 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to help, if there is any thing I can do. I already explained on the Talk:Enterprise architecture, that I couldn't seem to find any mentioning on Internet of the "Center for the Advancement of the Enterprise Architecture Profession" except their own homepage and the two external links on Wikipedia. This is the reason I am opposing the mentioning of the institute.

Any website mentioned in a external link section should have some kind of notability. Now it seems you are just in the process of starting that center, but maybe I am mistaken. If this is the case, Wikipedia is not a news site to first mention this fact. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marklane0913. Please wait to get a Talk page consensus that your material belongs in the article before you try restoring it again. Since you have continued to revert, even after our policies were explained to you, you are on thin ice. The only way to get a different answer from what you've already heard is to show us published evidence that other people consider this organization to be notable. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

RE: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Hope things are going well!

From the Notability article: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources."

Just for edification, the article does not define "significant coverage". Can we please define what significant coverage is and is not . . .

+++ Is reference to CAEAP in hard cover book okay? +++ Are notable and reliable secondary sources that have CAEAP listed on their partner page okay?

Bear with me, I'm new to wikipedia and reading all the wikipedia articles but this is still a bit fuzzy and the one link as reference is important to Enterprise Architecture comunity at large.

Have a blessed day!

Marklane0913 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The listing of organizations in the "external link" section is very restrickted. And it is the same with mentioning an organization in a Wikipedia article. In the field of Enterprise Architecture there are world wide probably hundreds or even thousands smaller and larger organizations active. If you start listing one, every other organization follows. This happes all the time in Wikipedia articles. That is why I prefer to list none, unless the organization is extremly notable in the field. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

RE: Appeal

Hope things are going well!

Marcel, with all due respect, I am trying to be respectful and serious here. You are just making stuff up with ad-hoc comments like that and did not answer my question . . . we know for a fact there are NOT hundreds and possibly thousands or active EA organization. We know all reliable secondary sources out there and they do not add up past 12. I am feeling like you’re purposefully being uncooperative and approaching disrespectful. This is unfortunate as I in good faith am trying to work within guidelines and you see many other examples in the same area with less significance than what I am proposing!

Have a good day!

Marklane0913 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]