Talk:S. R. Wojdak & Associates

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 16 November 2013, see discussion.
keep, 26 October 2009, see discussion.

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance

	Pennsylvania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incorrect Citations and References

Since you're in the process of trying to improve the article, I wanted to let you know that your citations and references given need adjusting:

Reference 1 here[1] does not at any point on the page mention this company's name, and is thus used improperly.
Reference 2 uses an undesirable subjective view, so a source and quote are great. However, I wonder how much the phrase "today" means in the world of politics in a quote nearly a decade old and it may be hard to convince other editors that this is still notable.
Reference 3 is from a source that currently has a reliability tag on its Wikipedia entry, and may not be given large weight in evaluation as a source.
Reference 4 needs the actual reference and not the name of the publication and a link to it on Wikipedia. Even if listed correctly, it is 10 years old, and seemingly even less relevant than #2 at 9 years.

None of the outside resources are peer-reviewed; all are either editorial or informational in nature. After matters of these resources is cleared up, notability will need to be established beyond proving that a company is a large lobbying group. Something needs to be made of an outside impact or notability; a lobbying group making a case based on 'good results' based on a few ages quotations will be hard to uphold. The mention of being "widely known to bring home the funds" is something worth consideration and is something that could arguably be removed by a passing editor as being advertisement and not remotely related to the notability of the article nor the reliability of its sources... but I agree that speedy delete wasn't appropriate in this case. I really really hate saying that the best option for an article is deletion, but these are a lot of concerns that will need to be looked at. Datheisen (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are arguments against notability. Here are more specific comments on the issues you raised:
- There's no requirement for peer-reviewed sources.
- WP:Reliable sources states sources must be "reliable, third-party, published sources." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Philadelphia Business Journal are mainstream newspapers with significant editorial control.
- WP:Reliable sources states that sources are to be evaluated within "context" and that the context. The Insider (newspaper) and Pennsylvania Report satisfy that requirement as both are industry-specific publications written by experts in the field of Pennsylvania politics. Both have been actively published for over 20 years.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The age of a source is not relevant, because Notability is not temporary. If sources show that it was notable in the past, then it is notable forever.--Blargh29 (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]