Talk:Stifel Nicolaus

Missouri NA‑class Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This redirect is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

St. Louis NA‑class Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Query

I semi-protected the page following a request on RfPP about problematic edits. Could the anon please say what the problem is with material such as this? I want to make sure that I didn't protect against a legitimate concern. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 06:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the anon should voice his concern. I just looked at the article some more, and there are some significant citation issues that need to be resolved since the article has no inline citations and lacks secondary sources. My request for the temporary semi-protection was driven by what appeared to be indiscriminate blanking; if it was not then let's identify the issues and address them. Jminthorne (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for attention to this article. It is not an encyclopedia entry -- it is a marketing tool. Wikipedia policy calls for independent sources for material in its articles and images require copyright information. Removal is a stated option to address such issues. The anon entries at the chronological start of the article are promotional and marketing, presenting material right out of marketing materials of the subject. The ip links for those early anon edits geo-locate to the company. You now have protected the company marketing version which repeatedly has been reinserted by what appears to be an associate of the firm who has made no attempt to provide sources for material challenged. I consistently removed the marketing materials and left the encyclopedic portion that is reasonable. Oversight by administrators finally was requested -- given the protection I can not edit further, so the problem is in your hands from here. Any editor with the intent to have this corporate format and undocumented material persist, should have the sources to justify the material. If the associates of the firm want their marketing material retained, it should be written in a conventional encyclopedic format and they should be required to provide citations that meet our guidelines. Images should be properly documented. Oversight or correction was the objective of blanking the portions that needed correction. Policy dictates that inappropriate or questionable material without citations be removed when such citations fail to be provided. Removal of materials without citations and secondary sources is awaited along with pursuit of the image issues. The burden should be reversed here, I'll keep an eye on the developments. 4.247.254.87 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]