User talk:Nagahs
GO!AppZone
[edit]I notice you have placed an objection on the article's talk page. An administrator will take your objection into consideration when deciding whether to delete the article. In the meantime, you're not allowed to delete the notice from the top of the article. Regards, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Hi, I've seen your email, but I'm very busy at present, so it will be tomorrow before I post a detailed reply here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure I can help here as well, Wikipedia is not a web host and articles must be well written with good sources (preferably news and magazine coverage or other equivalents to third-party source). I suggest familiarizing yourself with the guidelines such asWikipedia: New contributors' help page and Wikipedia: Your first article. If you need further help, please ask. SwisterTwister talk 17:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks SwisterTwister. Yes, you need independent verifiable sources' to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include your own sites, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Articles must be n[[WP:NOTADVERTISING|neutral and encyclopaedic. Apart from anything else, yours was full of spam links to your company, there shouldn't be any urls in the text. have a look at some related Wikipedia articles to see how to write an article properly
- If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
Nagahs, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Nagahs! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Welcome
[edit]
|
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by DES (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Reply
[edit]I think that the replies by myself and SwisterTwister above and at the Teahouse cover most of the points, but I'll reiterate here to clarify.
- it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Wikipedia is also not an acceptable source.
- You said we are a very small company, so we are not covered by independent technology portals— suggests that you and your products do not meet our criteria as listed above.You gave no sales data and very few actual facts. It's difficult to see why your product is notable anyway. You gave three links to analysts. One was commenting on the company, not the product, and another was largely quoting what you had told them. The Gartner page gives no relevant information on the free-to-view summary.
- it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. The whole article is devoted to telling us what the product can do, basically it's a sales pitch sourced mainly to your own website
- there shouldn't be any url links in the article.
- Part of the article at least seems to be a copyright violation of the Gartner page. © 2015 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The article was a copyright violation. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. Note that you cannot quote from the Globo website, marked Copyright 2015 by GLOBO Plc. unless you release the text under a compatible licence.
- You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject, an the Teahouse reply makes it clear that you cannot edit as a shared account. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which anyone can edit, not free advertising. You or your company cannot own a page.
I hope this makes things clear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)