User talk:Geekymutt

Your submission at Articles for creation: BWC Visual Technology (August 7)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Geekymutt! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

paid editing

Please deploy by copying and pasting from here

{{paid|employer=BWC Visual Technology|article=BWC Visual Technology}} ~~~~

the green text and pasting it onto your user page. Thsi will declare that you are employed by, and thus effectievly paid to edit the article on, BWC Visual Technology. I know it's a draft right now but you will almost cetrainly make it show that they pass WP:CORP and this safeguards you against accusations.

Meanwhile pleae enjoy editing Draft:BWC Visual Technology Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it has been rejected rather than declined, it is with following the link, above, to the real time chat help and asking how to proceed. Do past the text I put in green onto your user page first, though, please. Fiddle Faddle 20:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok. thank you

BWC Visual Technology

I've tried hard on your behalf to find the references that would make it pass WP:CORP. I regret I have been unable to. This means that it was correct to reject the draft rather than ask you to chase around lookkng for things that cannot be found. I hope the company succeeds and you can write an article on them in the future. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean we've been around over a decade, and are only one of a handful of installers, honestly I only know of one other company, a german outfit, that does it. Nearly every site on the science on a sphere install list was done by this company, including ones done at NASA and NOAA facilities. I'm not worried about the company succeeding at this point honestly, we're doing installs in ways the team supporting it hasn't (like the quick deploy system, that's all us.) and real time map creation for tracking things like planes or animals for the system. But I guess we're not notable enough despite being the primary installer of the systems and the people folks would see if it's installed or serviced?

Thanks for trying though TimTrent — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekymutt (talk • contribs)

The thing about Wkipedia is that it reports what other people say. That's pretty much the definition. This means your oproration has been workkng away qiuietly doing what it does well, but that it has made no outside world impact. It's like you or me. We're both pretty decent folk, doing what we don, but no-one reports stuff about us becaise we just get on with it.

If you can find press coverage I'm happy to give you a hand. This is what we need: We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make any draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. Fiddle Faddle 21:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Stuff like this maybe? https://www.endpoint.com/blog/2017/10/18/liquid-galaxy-at-astc-2017 https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1129366/science-on-a-sphere-arrives-at-kafb-first-in-dod/ https://blooloop.com/news/interspectral-spy-museum/

Of the three Blooloop is the one to start with. It is descriptive. The others are PR or regurgitated press releases. We get used to spotting it at 60 paces. Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

But it seems not to mention BWCVT except in passing. We need three or more paras about them to be significant coverage. Fiddle Faddle 21:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is that the articles are all about the installations, not about the company. Geekymutt, what we need to see is articles of that length that are about the company -- talking about how you produce these installations, where you've done them, how you developed the technology, and the fact you're almost unique in whatever your industry is called. Some industry journal piece on your company would be the most likely source. I'm surprised no one has done a profile of your company, as it does seem like an interesting thing you do. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Geekymutt! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, self citing a company's website as a description of their services., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)