Talk:Benzinga

Article was deleted several years ago

Please note that an article "Benzinga" was deleted for notability issue via consensus several years ago. I played no role in earlier article nor its deletion, & the "notability" standard is poorly defined/applied on Wikipedia. I'm fairly neutral about another deletion.

Also, the info that Benzinga was acquired for "$XXX million" is here an assertion based on only the "primary source" [who] has potential conflict of interest, plus some history of unreliability. This source seems officially "inadequate," although more reliable sources don't exist.

Note that the phrase "valued X at Y" can be misleading because the structure of such deals can vary in myriad ways.

2607:FB91:1700:5FA9:B4C6:FDF1:1E60:2166 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Reorg lede

Lede may over-emphasize CRJ source, but mostly, that's almost the only reliable and complete secondary source available for this article. CRJ is a gold-standard for press and news appraisals. So please discuss rather than revert. Or propose equally good sources. 35.8.218.228 (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Conference Events

Benzinga conference events -- as they relate to its business model -- are adequately referenced in general description of company. Yet an editor repeated this info as "history," with much greater detail, which I've removed. Assuming adequate sourcing, details of these former events (titles, fees, schedules, speakers, coffee hours, vendors etc.) are inappropriate here unless they directly explain something specific about the business of Benzinga itself -- the topic of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.221.207.102 (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing and CRJ

The CRJ is an extraordinarily "good source" for this article and offers the only reliable & thus available overview of the company.

To make better and wiser use of this uniquely best-available source on BENZINGA, I'm going to restore parts of an earlier version of this article.

The other available citations, while perhaps all usable, are on insignificant aspects of the company, and/or based on unverified assertions and often weak-to- very poor sources.

The CRJ citiations had been key to this article but is now relegated to citing a relatively obscure point. I favor the recently added fluff to balance it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.221.207.102 (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discuss

Ok so I've tightened & changed article. Thing is, "sponsored promotions" by a company styling itself a "news organization" is highly notable. That's why it was deemed notable by the Columbia Journalism Review. That's why it needs to be in the lede/is probably the main thing one needs to know about Benzinga.

Removed some specifics about past conferences. These events weren't really "notable" nor is such granular info needed or appropriate. On this general principle, I also cut a few other details.

Sourcing is now excessive at certain points & should be trimmed.

Two-thirds of the citations in this article refer to sources that are less-than ideal. I would even suggest limiting the current sourcing of this article to the following:

Columbia Journalism Review Bloomberg Detroit Free Press Globe and Mail CNBC Crain's Detroit Plus, a few primary sources that are clearly independent from subject, like SEC etc. 35.8.218.206 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)