Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CarInsurance.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Copy of Talk:CarInsurance.com just before article's deletion

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarInsurance.com

I have pasted this material here in the event the CarInsurance.com is re-created a third time:

[edit] Notability

This company fails to meet either of these guidelines as far as I can tell:

Meeting either of these guidelines would be acceptable.

To stay in Wikipedia, this article must verifiably demonstrate that this company meets these requirements using reliable sources. For more info on what this means, see:

This article was apparently deleted once before[1]. Last week, another editor proposed to delete the article again[2].

It looks like this article has probably never met the requirements above.

I tried to come up with some sort of reliable source that would verify notability but came up empty:

  • Google search produced 528 unique hits, however none of the first 100 I skimmed seemed to meet the requirements for a reliable source.
  • Orlando Sentinel archives search: no articles found, just a passing mention in the weekly list of new businesses formed. (The 20 September 2004 archive page costs money to retrieve; here's a sample from 25 December 2006 to show what the Sentinel's "New Businesses" listings look like). --A. B. (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A little more searching for material turns up:
LR3 Enterprises
1535 N. Maitland Avenue
Maitland,FL 32751
http://www.lr3.com
I did find some material on LR3, although it does not establish notability:
Perhaps someone can search further on LR3 and on Maitland Underwriters, Inc and find some evidence of notability. If the article is kept, I think both the complaint-handling investigation and the cybersquatting material would make good additions to the article. --A. B. (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

208.30.173.194 04:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)F4D -posted from this IP to prove authenticity

CarInsurance.com is notable under these guidelines:

As I read the guidelines with the goal to make Wiki whole and pure, CarInsurance.com has history with LR3 Enterprises, but CarInsurance.com is not LR3 Enterprises.

It is sad when "editors" subvert the truth to make a point, which is inconsistent with their goals.

As a person with intimate knowledge about the items revealed (with inaccurate parenthesis) in this article, I would like to shed some truth.

I think the site meets the notability requirements: It is interesting that when you scan the first 100 as the editor states instead of starting with 500 as the editor did above http://www.google.com/search?q=CarInsurance.com/&start=500, then you find the notability that the editor masked: Multiple Notable Hits

Google recognizes CarInsurance.com as the highest ranking site: |Home > Personal Finance > Insurance > Automotive

-As all would agree, no newspaper (especially the biased Orlando Sentinel) should be used to prove notability. The public should prove notability, not a paid news service.

-LR3 Enterprise sold some of its assets to Direct General Insurance Company. There has never been an investigation into complaint handling at LR3 as stated above. Direct General Insurance Company had a customary Market Conduct Examination Report by the Insurance Department on their company where it stated that the 42 agencies were sold to Direct General. Parentheses appear to excuse an editor from the truth. When I do a simple CTRL-F search of the PDF I don't see anything that represents this statement: "(this was an investigation into complaint handling at LR3)"

-LR3 Enterprises owns the State Auto Insurance agency group in Oklahoma. | State Auto 24-Aug-1995, the agency owner registered stateauto.com along with their other agency names including cashregister.com [3] and friendlyauto.com [4]. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company decided in 2000 that they wanted to join the Internet. They stated that they had more right to the name than the agency owners. The owner of the domain disagreed and under advice from its representation, was told to offer it at high amount. The dispute went to arbitration and the domain owner lost. The domain owner still feels this was an unfair judgment. Currently, the domain owner uses David L. Sigalow (State Auto Mutual Insurance Company legal representative) as their Internet representation. He now fights for their legal Trademark rights. I don't see anything that represents this statement: "(this was a cybersquatting case against LR3)" This claim is far-fetched and amazing to me. I will now submit this editor for removal because of the lack of editorial discretion.

The Wiki should be built up by individuals that want accuracies and truth, not subverted, masked truths. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.30.173.194 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For notability we look for significant mention from multiple, independent reliable sources. At the moment the article has only one independent source, it's a local paper and the mention of carinsurance.com in the article is not significant. Rather than pointing to google searches (which are not appropriate for the article and are not considered appropriate evidence of notability) please provide actual links or citations that show the notability of the company. I have looked through several pages of Google and a couple of other search engines and have been unable to find anything. A. B. was also unable to find anything. You seem to be saying above that there are links within the results that show notability. Could you point us directly to the individual links that you believe do this? Thanks -- Siobhan Hansa 13:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unfortunate Editor Masking

As I look further to see how the user A. B. masked the truth. He stated that 208.30.173.194 was registered to LR3. I know that this isn't possible.

He used an old address to try to mask truth in his links. I guess this editorial investigation comes from users that lie.

We don't lie. This is our mission statement:

Our primary mission is to actively manage our clients and to continually enhance our company's value as a long-term Managing General Agency. We believe that the thoughtful, deliberate and prudent management of every policy, both in financial terms and in terms of maintaining the quality of customer service and dedication allows us to prosper.

We pursue this mission through our basic business: as large scale, comprehensive insurance underwriters and agent services which are committed to the highest standards of quality. We employ the most talented, motivated people available, and encourage them to apply their full potential in the pursuit of excellence.

We insist that our business goals serve both our agents and customers. We seek to enhance the long-term equity values of all relationships.

In all these things, we are determined to conduct our affairs honestly, fairly, forthrightly and ethically.

He says. "This IP address traces back to "mail.carinsurance.com". Unfortunately, he links to old domains:208-30-173-192 --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.30.173.194 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attack on A. B. is unfounded. As A. B. notes below WhoIs for 208.30.173.194 shows registration to LR3 and reverse DNS for 208.30.173.194 shows mail.carinsurance.com. Your time would be better spent actually trying to improve this article rather than falsely attacking the veracity of a diligent, well respected editor. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respond to allegations of misconduct

My responses to 208.30.173.194

  • It is sad when "editors" subvert the truth to make a point, which is inconsistent with their goals.
  • I don't know what to say here, it certainly wasn't my intent to subvert the truth and I don't see how I did.

  • "As a person with intimate knowledge about the items revealed (with inaccurate parenthesis) in this article, I would like to shed some truth."
  • My original post as written (with additional formatting):
    • "Google search produced 528 unique hits, however none of the first 100 I skimmed seemed to meet the requirements for a reliable source."
      • Click the first Google link above and you'll get the first 100 hits. The second link leads to hits 501 through 528.
    • I still don't see any hits in the first 100 results that meet the requirements of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Guideline

  • "As I look further to see how the user A. B. masked the truth. He stated that 208.30.173.194 was registered to LR3. I know that this isn't possible. He used an old address to try to mask truth in his links. I guess this editorial investigation comes from users that lie."
  • "He says. "This IP address traces back to "mail.carinsurance.com". Unfortunately, he links to old domains:208-30-173-192"
    • See whois and traceroute links cited earlier in this section.

--A. B. (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to --A. B.

Thank you for your response. LR3 is definitely a part of the history of CarInsurance.com. I see by your response that the items you highlighted were the point you were making. You are correct that the IP would trace back to LR3. You are also correct that Maitland Underwriters is now a subsidiary of CarInsurance.com.

I am learning the Wikipedia etiquette and protocol.

Can we not post about inaccuracies on our talk page, because of this: Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline

Does this prove Notability, by definition: Google recognizes CarInsurance.com as the highest ranking site: Home > Personal Finance > Insurance > Automotive

Finally, I would like to know how the bolded conclusions where met:

Thank you. --208.30.173.194 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your questions and assertions:

  1. The COI Guideline encourages editors with a COI to post information on the article talk page for other neutral editors to decide whether or not to include them. So post away here with suggestions.
  2. Google's ranking does not establish notability. The number of unique Google hits may sway a borderline case in an Articles for Deletion discussion but it does not establish notability. More often I've seen it used as a negative: "they only get 137 unique hits" There are limitations on using Google hits in some cases (for example, compare prominent 19th century Costa Rican political figures vs. professional wrestlers). For a web business, you'd expect a number of unique hits. The main notability guideline at WP:NN has a link to an essay (not a policy or guideline) on using Google hits.
  3. State of Florida report entitled "Target Market Conduct Examination Report Of Direct General Insurance Company":
    "The purpose of this examination was to review areas of the Company’s operations that were cited most frequently in consumer complaints received by the Florida Department of Financial Services, to analyze open and closed claims with regard to claims handling procedures, and to verify the Company’s compliance with Florida Statutes and Rules. Based on the consumer complaints filed against the Company, the OIR focused on claims delays, untimely return of unearned premiums due to cancellations, and rating issues." (page 3, second paragraph)
    "Effective November 1, 2003, DGIA acquired certain of the assets of Maitland Underwriters, Inc. and its affiliate LR3 Enterprises, Inc., which assets included the Cash Register agents who wished to be so employed. Since November 1, 2003, all business written in Florida is being produced by DGIA, which now acts as the Company’s MGA. DGIA commenced charging the statutorily prescribed $25.00 MGA fee on November 11, 2003 for new business and on December 19, 2003 for renewal business." (page 6, first paragraph)
  4. Re your comment:
    "LR3 Enterprises owns the State Auto Insurance agency group in Oklahoma. State Auto 24-Aug-1995, the agency owner registered stateauto.com along with their other agency names including cashregister.com [5] and friendlyauto.com [6]. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company decided in 2000 that they wanted to join the Internet. They stated that they had more right to the name than the agency owners. The owner of the domain disagreed and under advice from its representation, was told to offer it at high amount. The dispute went to arbitration and the domain owner lost. The domain owner still feels this was an unfair judgment. Currently, the domain owner uses David L. Sigalow (State Auto Mutual Insurance Company legal representative) as their Internet representation. He now fights for their legal Trademark rights. I don't see anything that represents this statement: "(this was a cybersquatting case against LR3)" This claim is far-fetched and amazing to me. I will now submit this editor for removal because of the lack of editorial discretion."
    Please refer to the following:
--A. B. (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside opinions sought

Given the gravity of 208.30.173.194's accusations regarding my behavior as an editor:

  • "...subvert the truth"
  • "...user A. B. masked the truth"
  • "...I guess this editorial investigation comes from users that lie."
  • "...I will now submit this editor for removal because of the lack of editorial discretion."

... I have requested an outside opinion at WikiProject Spam. --A. B. (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I left left this user 208.30.173.194 a warning about inflamatory language and civility. I think you are 100% correct in the line you are pursuing. --BozMo talk 11:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The IP's accusations are unfounded, unacceptable and reflect more poorly on him/her than on you A. B. I think your approach has been exactly what was called for and you should keep it up. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology to A.B.

--A. B., I apologize for the inflamatory language. You have justified your interpretation of your research and we will respect the Wiki editor's opinion in this matter. 208.30.173.194 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Note that there has also been inappropriate commercial linking from other Wikipedia articles to the carinsurance.com web site from these accounts in the past:

--A. B. (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam

Recently User:A. B. asked for advice at the above project page. My comment was as follows:

Your addition of the {{notability|Companies}} banner to CarInsurance.com seems eminently justified! And I still don't see any reliable sources (WP:RS) in the article. You laid out your research on the Talk page, and User_talk:208.30.173.194 criticized your work without appearing to have any documented facts to support his position. My guess is that an AfD proposal, should you think it appropriate, would meet with some sympathy... EdJohnston 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ** Talk Page History **

I've added below a copy of talk page history taken from the history page's source code; while the facts are correct I've probably massacred the wiki-formatting. All times shown have been converted to UTC. There are no diffs or links to any versions since the article has been deleted:


13:51, 24 January 2007 208.30.173.194 (Talk) (→ Outside opinions sought)
13:48, 24 January 2007 EdJohnston (talk • contribs) (Comment posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam)
13:07, 24 January 2007 SiobhanHansa (talk • contribs) (→ Notability - What are the specific links that show this notability)
12:10, 24 January 2007 SiobhanHansa (talk • contribs) (→ Outside opinions sought - Accusations are out of line)
11:43, 24 January 2007 SiobhanHansa (talk • contribs) (→ Unfortunate Editor Masking - A.B.'s did no masking.)
11:26, 24 January 2007 BozMo (talk • contribs) (tidy)
11:26, 24 January 2007 BozMo (talk • contribs) (reply)
07:15, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (External links)
04:42, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (Outside opinions sought)
04:37, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (→ Response to A. B. - respond to questions and assertions)
03:29, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (→ Response to A. B. - comment)
01:59, 24 January 2007 208.30.173.194 (Talk) ((→ Respond to allegations of misconduct)
 01:08, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (Respond to allegations of misconduct)
00:06, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (add unsigned template to 208.30.173.194's second edit)
00:04, 24 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (→ Notability - added unigned template to 208.30.173.194's edit)
00:18, 23 January 2007 208.30.173.194 (Talk) '(→ Notability)
23:53, 22 January 2007 208.30.173.194 (Talk) (→ Notability)
06:50, 17 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (information found on LR3 -- more)
06:16, 17 January 2007 A. B. (talk • contribs) (company does not meet notability requirements)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticles_for_deletion_CarInsurance.com_913e.html"