User talk:RobertBatesman

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, RobertBatesman, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing four tildes (~~~~); our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Meatsgains (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Agility Communications

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Agility Communications requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Calton | Talk 00:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the article Talk page: I'm a little curious as to why this article is seen as a candidate for speedy deletion. The company is less than a year old but their attainment of the Avaya wholesale license was seen in the industry as a major coup. The coverage in the media understandably only concerned that one event, but surely if there's any media coverage then it can't be deemed as insignificant under WP:SIGNIF? Frankly there's almost no information on the Irish telecoms industry on Wikipedia as a whole and what is there is mostly out of date. --RobertBatesman (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

their attainment of the Avaya wholesale license was seen in the industry as a major coup Really? By whom? Because all I'm seeing are warmed-over versions of the same press release; of the nine "references", six of them couldn't even be bothered to change the text of the press release's headline ("Agility Becomes Avaya's First Wholesale Partner in Ireland") and one just swapped out the verb ("becomes" to "named as"). --Calton | Talk 11:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to make an objective statement when I use that word. That's why I didn't use anything approaching such language in the article itself. I was simply trying to state that as a new company, getting the Avaya license is actually the main reason anyone's talking about them. I realise that the references are mostly just saying the same thing, should I have included just one of them then? When I was writing the article I wondered whether it met the standards of 'notability', but certainly felt it met the standards of 'significance', which Wikipedia specifically mentions as being a lower threshold. To me it seems clear that if multiple credible sources see fit to mention it then it meets that threshold.

Was it really necessary to delete the article without even trying to engage with me? As I understand it all new articles are reviewed by an experienced editor. This article was no exception, so why did the original reviewer have no problems with it, much less find it so poor that it had to be immediately removed with no discussion?

All in all, this behaviour combined with your rather puzzling assertion of a COI comes across as extremely hostile. I'm not experienced in editing, I make no claims to that, but maybe we can actually adopt the attitudes of "Assume Good Faith" and "Please do not bite the newcomers"? RobertBatesman (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...as a new company, getting the Avaya license is actually the main reason anyone's talking about them.

Except that I see no evidence anyone is talking about them at all, for whatever reason.

I realise that the references are mostly just saying the same thing, should I have included just one of them then?

You shouldn't have included any of them, because it was fairly obvious by looking at the text of the "articles" that they were rewritten versions of the same press release, and are therefore not reliable sources^[1] by Wikipedia standards and absolutely not for establishing notability.

...felt it met the standards of 'significance', which Wikipedia specifically mentions as being a lower threshold

Where does it say that? Here? Because it's only talking about barriers to speedy deletion on grounds of A7: "No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)". Which is irrelevant, since it was deleted on different grounds: G11: "Unambiguous advertising or promotion"

To me it seems clear that if multiple credible sources see fit to mention it then it meets that threshold.

See previous about rewritten press releases: neither multiple nor credible, so fails that prong.

Was it really necessary to delete the article without even trying to engage with me?

You were notified (see the top of this section, above) and you were given -- and took -- the chance to make your case (see the text I copied from the Talk page, above), so please don't claim otherwise. The admin who deleted the article (Ritchie333 (talk · contribs)) clearly felt you hadn't made a case, since it was deleted.

As I understand it all new articles are reviewed by an experienced editor.

Which I am -- 13 years, 4 months, and 11 days, according to the counter on my User page -- or are you suggesting that's not enough?

--Calton | Talk 16:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When assessing an article, I tend to come from the viewpoint of "could any independent person write or improve this article?" I tend to then do a quick search on Google News as a gauge for how likely that is - and the results for Agility Communications are here. The first piece looks suspiciously like a press release, and the others just mention the company in passing or are about a completely different organisation. By contrast, at the other end of the scale, the most popular Wikipedia article right now is probably Stephen Hawking, and a news search for him covers about 3.2 million pieces. Obviously I'm not expecting you to get that level of coverage, but without a good page of solid, independent, reporting, it's difficult to write an article, and hence difficult to avoid getting that deleted. User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has more information. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just getting back to this now. Fair enough, I agree that the regurgitated press releases aren't considered good sources. To address some of the particular statements: I wasn't up to speed on the process of how deletion works. I assumed that Calton had deleted the article and was a little taken aback as it seemed abrupt. Looking at it now it seems a little fairer though.

Regarding A7 vs G11, some confusion is I think understandable, as A7 was the initial reason given by Calton for speedy deletion and has been brought up by Ritchie333 as well. Speaking of G11 though, it states: "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." To me this would seem to be referring to the actual language used in the article, no? Was there a problem with that too? Note, I'm not asking for the article to be reinstated, I've already conceded on that point. I'm just trying to figure out how things work so I don't end up annoying people in the future.

Finally, Calton, I was in no way, shape or form stating or even implying that you were not an experienced editor. I think that is quite clear from the full quote: "As I understand it all new articles are reviewed by an experienced editor. This article was no exception, so why did the original reviewer have no problems with it, much less find it so poor that it had to be immediately removed with no discussion?" This was a question on why there was such a difference of opinion between two editors (the other was Cwmhiraeth, I believe), and whether that difference should give one grounds for pause. It was most certainly not a personal attack. RobertBatesman (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, RobertBatesman. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Agility Communications, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Calton | Talk 11:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give more information as to where this COI is coming from? I've no relationship with Agility other than working in the broader IT industry in Ireland. At a number of networking events a few of us mentioned how poor the quality of ICT articles are regarding Irish companies and thought about improving them. I initially started with Telcom because they are the internet provider for my workplace, but when I went to look I couldn't find much information about them online. From there I was linked on to Agility, and wrote about what I could find on them. I was planning on creating an article on Magnet next, should I not? Are we just assuming bad faith here? RobertBatesman (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give more information as to where this COI is coming from?

This is a notification of potential COI -- note the use of the conditional "if" -- not an accusation. The notification is being made because, bluntly, your edits fit a long-running pattern associated with paid editors; a pattern, not evidence, therefore it's prudent to ASK.

Are we just assuming bad faith here?

If that were the case, you would not have been given the standard notification, you would have been blocked immediately.

I was planning on creating an article on Magnet next, should I not?

That's your decision. You should familiarize yourself with our notability standards, first, because if "Magnet" -- whatever it is -- doesn't quality, then it doesn't quality: Wikipedia documents notability, it doesn't promote it. --Calton | Talk 16:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Telcom (Ireland)

The article Telcom (Ireland) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small telecoms company, in business since 1999, but seems to have only a minor footprint. What few refs it has are churnalism noting that its 1 million euros (!) investment in upgrades.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 11:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we simply going back and trying to delete everything I've ever written? Surely if credible sources find it worthwhile to write about a subject then it meets notability requirements? This just seems personal and arbitrary. For reference, most of the companies listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_of_Ireland don't meet the subjective bar you're setting here. I started editing to improve the quality and quantity of articles on IT in Ireland because I found them lacking. I'm starting to wonder if they can be improved now under these kind of restrictions.

A number of editors have already looked at this article and obviously found it suitable. Furthermore WP:NOTE clearly states:

"For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

In this case, it appears to be the first resort. RobertBatesman (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem you've got with utilities like telecoms, networks and electricity, is that for most people they just "work" - you switch on your computer, open a browser and look at the news without having to worry about where the power or the network is coming from. Consequently, utility companies just don't get written about very much, and because Wikipedia reflects what other people write about, it's hard to find any solid information that could be used to reference and write articles.

The other problem is that articles about corporations are a hard sell, simply because so many spammers and trolls have set up shop here, that people tend to be suspicious when these classes of articles turn up. I'm not saying that's what's happened here, or that it's fair (because it isn't), but writing about companies is difficult; usually more so than people think. I don't really have a good answer to that other than that's just the way things are sometimes.

Sometimes, the best option is to write about the product instead of the company that makes it. For example, Nobó was originally written around a business, and was tagged for deletion, but I rewrote it to be about the ice cream, and how it was available to buy in just about any medium-sized store all over Ireland ... and the deletion tag was removed. Unfortunately, as I said above, telecoms and networks aren't really tangible "things" you can hold in your hand, making that sort of tack difficult. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind advice Ritchie. I am indeed re-evaluating whether to push on with this kind of editing if it'll result in so much pushback. As I said before, a few of us had been discussing the Tech industry in Ireland and were a little taken aback at both the lack of articles and the quality of articles. I'm starting to understand a little about why that is now.

Regarding the articles themselves, I can understand the accusations against the Agility references being effectively a mirror of their press release, fair enough. What I can't see though is that being the case with the Telcom references. I can't find any official Telcom press release, and even if one did exist none of the news pieces are simply copying it without modification. I even checked the texts with a plagiarism comparison site (http://www.duplichecker.com) - none of them have any text in common. The definition of 'churnalism' provided here states:

"Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release."

Clearly this is not the case here. How can there be minimal changes if the sources have absolutely no text in common?

I don't think that's the case for the Telcom references. Certainly, this source is absolutely fine, national newspapers like the Irish Independent and Irish Examiner are perfectly acceptable to use as sources, provided they're not blatantly marked as a press release. I've done a search for news sources here, but aside from the Independent piece, I don't get much else. It's generally much easier for me to just improve the article a bit so it doesn't get deleted (my track record is here), so hopefully you understand that when I'm saying I can't improve this article easily, it's genuine.

If there are existing articles that are of a low standard, list them here and I'll look into them. Part of the problem is that as the years go by, the general quality and acceptance threshold of articles increases (so what was acceptable in 2005 isn't now) and because there are 5 million articles, it's impossible for anyone to check all of them. So you end up with mad inconsistencies, and a regular complaint from new users is, "hang on, why are we deleting 'x' when 'y' over there is just as a bad?"

In any case, the PROD ("Proposed deletion") tag placed here is supposed to mean "this article has been abandoned, nobody cares about it". Since that's obviously not the case here (I assume you care about it!), I've removed the tag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Agility Communications Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Agility Communications Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ From the page: "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release."

[1] From the page: "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release."

[1]