Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Business and economics

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Requested articles/Business and economics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Requested articles/Business and economics at the Reference desk.

If you wanted to request an article, follow this link. Don't request it on this page.

	Requested articles Project‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Requested articles, because it is used for the administration of the Requested articles process or it was formerly listed at Requested articles.Requested articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Requested articlesTemplate:WikiProject Requested articlesRequested articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Business Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Economics NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Hi all - I just wanted to clarify my affiliation with Merrill Edge as I am the author who provided the information for consideration of a Wikipedia article. I am a paid employee at Bank of America, which owns/operates the Merrill Edge online brokerage. The information is factual and I've provided several external resources, but wanted to provide transparency here as well. Thank you, Jason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djasoncook (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this request referring to

I am not sure, but if you think so, just redirect it to

Euler's homogeneous function theorem. --Pamri • Talk 04:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_articles#Bullets_or_no_bullets.2C_dense_vs._sparse. Dragons flight 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I question the appropriateness of

For anybody looking for a good laugh on a tiresome day - see the (currently) second request in "Business" (key figure). ROTFL! Bravada, talk - 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following may be copyrighted

Definitions of substitute check on the Web:

• A substitute check is a legal document, with all the rights and obligations of the original check and is about the size of a business check. It includes all information and endorsements from both the front and back of the original check . All substitute checks are required to include the following statement – This is a LEGAL COPY of your check. You can use it the same way you would use the original check. This is also known as an Image Replacement Document (IRD). www.ennis.com/ennis_site/check21/check21_glossary.htm

End of copyright notice.....

Hi, I am Kushal Hada. I have a userpage too if you think I am doing something inappropriate. The thing is that I get substitute checks from Bank of America and I want Wikipedia to have an article about it. I liked the article about Mail-in rebate and its redirected page. I will follow up on your progress. Thank you! Kushal Kushal one 18:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although requesting on the Talk page is unofficial, I jumped right on it. Now you can see the beginning of an artcle for substitute check. I hope other contributors will help wikify and categorize this new article. --Emana 09:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time we move the Business Organizations section to a sub-page or its own full page. Or better yet, why not make this whole page into a composite page of six or seven separate pages? This is your chance to chime in. I will wait two weeks until Jan. 1st, 2007 to take any action. --Emana 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it needs to be separated. Is there some way to make it more manageable, like by having categories that fold out? Gogarburn 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, apparently, the Cleanup Taskforce has reviewed this article and will soon be changing stuff around. I don't know when they'll actually assign someone to it, but I don't want to step on their toes. If the person assigned to it could notify me of their intentions, I'd appreciate it. So far it HAS been two weeks since the split proposal, so I would like to start the split process. -- Emana 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been two weeks, so I did it. I proposed the split to brush away spam under the rug, but I bet it's going to increase spam requests in the other sections. I marked the split area with HTML, so If it doesn't work well, we can put the section back easily. -- Emana 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "People" section has become unwieldy and long. I think it's time to split this section off. I know most of the requests must be splam links, but it cannot be ignored that these are real (or virtual) people that exist and may become notable enough for a paragraph on Wikipedia in the near future. As such, I think it suitable to let them be red-linked until the day their notoriaty arrives. With the amount of requests contained in this section, I hereby propose a section split. I will wait for two weeks until Jan. 7th, 2007, to take any action. Please leave your opinions here. -- Emana 07:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I support splitting it off. Gogarburn 21:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Supported. Unwieldy is right. AndrewHowse 16:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I also support this split. I will take on this task since the user that originally suggested it seems to have abandoned the idea (see note about Jan. 7th, above). I hope this is to the majority's liking. Ben K 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ben K. After splitting off the Business Organizations section, I wasn't sure if the split was doing any good, so I wasn't too energetic about splitting another section... it is a lot of work. Thanks again! -- Emana 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting external links that link directly to the corporate website of the subject of the request, as they promote

I don't see any more external links on this page. Can we now remove the Spam-request tag?Anshuk (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see blatant promotional external links because I've been patrolling like the warning says. Nevertheless, you are free to remove the Spam request tag as you see fit. The warning tag exists for my convenience; I will continue to police advertisements without the tag, but would hate to have to explain myself over and over to people that say, "I didn't see any rule or warning!". --Emana (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate the job you are doing. Since this came up in the category 'Wikipedia spam cleanup', I thought there is some cleanup required. I won't touch it, since it looks like it is in good hands. Anshuk (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added definitions under Brand Development Index and Customer Tiering. Neither is exactly rooted in economics but they certainly arise in a business context. --AndrewHowse 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update for clarity -

Brand Development Index has been moved to a stub (by another user) AndrewHowse 16:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Corporate blogging policy is notable in the encyclopedic sense in at least four ways:

• Advertising medium for employer:

• e.g. SaaScon workshops for a 2005 IDG conference; Signpost article about Microsoft

• Critical of employer:

• e.g. Delta Air Lines/Ellen Simonetti; July 2006 article in The Scotsman

• Integral part of corporate culture:

• e.g. Sun Microsystems policy for company-hosted employee blogs

• Underneath the radar:

• e.g. Electronic Frontier Foundation employee blog advice

See also: a young article, Employee branding…

I posted the points above during a discussion (now archived) on WP:BLP/N about a specific article—the larger context has more scope. Is there anyone here who knows where to take this, or who has an interest in developing it further? — Athænara ✉ 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested an article on this book by Albert O. Hirschman. It is legitimate, although I may create the article myself, time permitting. Bearian 22:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be ext. links for people to make articles. I mean if the article is regarding a corp., I don't think it can be link spam. They don't make profit by ads. Most information is only available from the corps. website! --Obsolete.fax (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would I go about requesting an article about

A small explaination is available from common carrier ABF: Explanation of Rate Scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PReinie (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I ditto above. Info is published by NMFTA: http://www.nmfta.org/Pages/Nmfc.aspx describes the catalog and source. HTH. cheers!

How/where does one go about requesting a page for a non-profit organization? I have all of the information necessary but cannot seem to avoid deletion. Any help would be greatly appreciated-Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erika.boll (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding a link to third party news coverage showing its encyclopedic value. Full Decent (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Business Terminology section was overwritten with promotional text by User:Indexholdingdubai, and afterwards, two people made new requests. I reverted to the last version before the overwriting and put back in the two new requests. I think everything is ok now. --Cmontero (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a large, probably controversial, update today. If you disagree with it, please discuss here. My methods include: removing spam, removing existing articles, checking Google Scholar for notoriety of authors, checking my own expert knowledge from my education on the subject. I erred on the side of caution, more cleansing needs to be done. Full Decent (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think we can resolved this one. Someone requested

I just added a request for Central States Pension Fund. I put it under "other". There seems to be no place to request articles about pensions, labor unions or the labor movement.  Randall Bart   Talk  16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]