Talk:Elevator pitch/Archives/2013

Spam/Commercial Links

I've removed (again) the link to the Chris O'Leary site. The website is promoting a vanity-published book on the topic. The link was originally added by an anonymous user, and my removal was undone by an anonymous user. I suspect the author of the aforementioned book is responsible for both. Please don't replace the link without discussing it on the talk page first. Drichardson (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your authority or basis for making this decision? Have you even read the article that is linked to? It fits the guidelines of Wikipedia. The linked-to article contains significant additional information that isn't contained in the original article (and that probably doesn't belong there but that is relevant). The article has been used or referenced by professors at multiple top-tier universities (e.g. UVA) in entrepreneurship and business communication courses. The article and book have also been referenced by Mike Southon of the Financial Times. The article grew out of work that I did at Washington University in St. Louis. The book is also in use at Washington University in St. Louis and other universities. Chris O'Leary Thepainguy (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll find that the site in question "primarily exist to sell products or services" and should be avoided according to Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided As for the other claims, aside from the publisher supplied reviews (the ones supplied by you!), no eveidence that the vanity-published book is used as you assert above. The link should be removed as it is obviously spam.

If that wasn't enough, consider that you may have also run afoul of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest being that you are the author of the vanity book you promote on the very page (of your website!) that you've linked to.

(I don't consider this reply as "outing" as you've already reviled yourself as the author by signing your real name at the end of your last reply.) Drichardson (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote and linked to the article in question, and have been maintaining this article, long before I published my book, which removes the question of conflict of interest. It seems that you merely have a problem with experts who self-publish books (which is different than vanity publishing). My book has sold hundreds of copies and I am a recognized authority in the field. I have no control over whether you believe my claims or not, but they are all true. Here's the Financial Times piece that mentions my article and book. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ee3f504-0ab8-11de-95ed-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=02e16f4a-46f9-11da-b8e5-00000e2511c8.html?nclick_check=1 Thepainguy (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things: 1) The site in question "primarily exist to sell products or services" This makes it spam. 2) The FT article isn't even about you or your book -- it's only mentioned briefly at the end of the article. This may feed your ego, but it doesn't exactly make you an expert. 3) You don't appear to be a "recognized authority in the field" despite your claims. 4) Yes, your self-published book is vanity-published because ... you are not a recognized expert in the field! In case you didn't know, selling few hundered copies of a vanity published book doesn't magically establish you as an expert. See, "recognized experts" typically have their work cited by other academics in academic works. (That's what recognition tends to imply.) Being briefly mentioned at the end of a magazine article doesn't not make you a "recognized expert" even if it does feed your ego. A few examples from my own life: About 10 years ago I wrote a Linux tutorial. It was linked to and used by many (>20) universities around the world. While this made me feel good, it didn't make me a "recognized expert" on the subject. Neither did one of my first books, which was used (for a few years) as a primary text at Eastern Oregon University. Same as above, though it made me feel good to know my work was appreciated, it didn't magically make me a "recognized expert".

All that extra stuff is off-topic. The question we need to answer is "should this link be allowed?". If you'll read the wikipedia guidelines I linked to earlier, you see why it needs to be removed. Drichardson (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't link to my site. I link to a relevant article in it. Second, my site contains multiple free resources about the elevator pitch. Third, I just did a presentation last night to 200 entrepreneurs and others at an event here in St. Louis at IT Enterprises. The topic was frequently made mistakes in elevator pitches. The presentation, and I, were very well received. You're just a troll. Thepainguy (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(1)If you link to an article on your site, you're still linking to your site. (2) The site in question runs afoul of the guidelines linked earlier. Is your article also published somewhere more appropriate to link to? (3) I'm glad that your presentation went well and that others have found your ideas valuable. Just remember: Kevin Trudeau has also found lot's of success with his "ideas" though no one would consider him a medical expert. :) Still, this has nothing to do with the link which is still, at present, inappropriate.

I appreciate your willingness to work through this issue.

"Just remember: Kevin Trudeau has also found lot's of success with his "ideas" though no one would consider him a medical expert. :)"

As I said, you are nothing but a troll, disguised as a god-fearing citizen, and the quote above proves it. To date you haven't said a thing about the article. You've just attacked me. I hope to have you banned. Thepainguy (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quite the turn-around! But it doesn't really matter. The link STILL doesn't meet the guidelines. I asked you earlier if the article was published on an appropriate site. If it is, it could be linked from there. As it stands now, the link is nothing but spam.Drichardson (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to add: It's not the article I have a problem with -- If you'd PLEASE read the guidelines I linked to earlier you'd see that.Drichardson (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked you earlier if the article was published on an appropriate site. If it is, it could be linked from there. As it stands now, the link is nothing but spam...Oh, forgot to add: It's not the article I have a problem with.

You're very conveniently quoting only a part of the policy (Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). The full quote is...

5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, in the mobile phone article, don't link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.

Notice the use of the word "page" and not "site". This is not true of the page that I link to (or even the site). The page is informational. Face it, you're wrong. Thepainguy (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1) You can't link to a site, only to a page. This is how the web works. 2) According to You, the article in question "is an excerpt from Elevator Pitch Essentials" and includes no less than three advertisements for your product, a picture of the product, and a navigation link labeled "Buy". 3) While it does in fact contain some information about your particular take on the elevator pitch, the whole first part is intended to sell the reader on the need for an elevator pitch (this isn't unusual in an article) then it provides a solution -- in a short section called "The Solution" which starts off "The goal of this book". This page is clearly intended to sell the book to your readers. How can you possibly deny this?

Now, the informational part of the article isn't even about the elevator pitch so much as it is your particular theory of the elevator pitch. I'm really beginning to wonder, having taken a second look at the article, if it should be included at all.

Here is my proposed solution: 1) Find another author who has used or referenced your theory. 2) Update the wikipedia article to include the information in your article. 3) Add your book and the other authors publication as citations. (The extra citation will help to assuage questions that your ideas are 'on the fringe'.)

I think this is perfectly reasonable. As you've mentioned before, "The article has been used or referenced by professors at multiple top-tier universities" so a citation shouldn't be too hard to come up with and will lend credibility to the updated article.Drichardson (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

buzzuka

I request that the editor allow the citing of the www.buzzuka.com external link for Elevator Pitch, based on the following information.

The elevator pitch tool at Buzzuka.com contains a neutral and objective tool, providing a free step-by-step process for creating elevator pitches. It is analogous to the Harvard Business School’s elevator pitch creation tool, currently an external link. While there are many hundreds of external links discussing elevator pitches, only two, HBS and Buzzuka, actually build an Elevator Pitch with the user’s own input.

Buzzuka.com has been cited in the entrepreneurial, marketing and non-profit sectors and has been reviewed by numerous third parties as an excellent tool for creating elevator pitches. Here are some recent examples:

Entrepreneur Magazine, has recognized the Buzzuka elevator pitch tool in their Spark of Genus column in both their July 2010 print edition and on the web http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2010/july/207178.html

Chicago Now Magazine, Christa Beall Diefenbach, assistant director of the Axelson Center for Nonprofit Management, Chicago’s premier nonprofit educational program.featured Buzzuka.com in her July 26, 2010 article “Two Resources to Help you Create a Great Elevator Pitch”

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/non-profit-chicago/2010/07/two-resources-to-help-you-create-a-great-elevator-speech.html

Bloggers focused on helping small businesses with their marketing often include blogposts on Buzzuka including: Park Howell’s Sustainable Storyteller, April 1, 2010 post at “Writing Your 30-Second Elevator Pitch Just Got Easier With Buzzuka.com”  

http://parkhowell.com/green-advertising-and-marketing/cmos-writing-your-30-second-story-just-got-easier-with-buzzuka-com and Blogging with Amy, April 9, 2010, “Create and Elevator Pitch with this Tool” at http://bloggingwithamy.com/create-an-elevator-pitch-with-this-tool/comment-page-1/#comment-192

Thanks for your consideration. --Meisele (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)