Archives

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Meira Oy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19#Meira Oy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 84.250.167.86 (talk) 08:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! No rush responding, but I don't want this request to fall off your radar. Please let me know if you have any other questions or concerns.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I have been away for a while. Will take a look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CNMall41,

I've spent some time redoing the RTB House article, based on your feedback and a review of wikipedia's policies, you can find the draft page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:RTB_House

I additionally used the following page of a comparable company as a guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteo

I believe that RTB House, particularly based on their Google FLOC contributions, are worthy of inclusion in the same way that Criteo is. I have also taken particular care to make the article more neutral, my apologies for the more salesy tones in the previous version.

Would it be possible for you to give it a once-over and let me know if its okay? If not can I ask another editor to give it a review before resubmitting?

I would appreciate whatever assistance you can give me.

Cheers,

Fly4pix (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fly4pix, you are welcome to resubmit if you feel it meets guidelines. However, I can say that there is not quite an understanding of WP:ORGCRIT from your end. The references you added are written by contributors or the company website itself. These are not acceptable references to establish notability so I would assume it would be declined a second time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CNMall41. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Action House".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, I believe this is one I worked on reviewing through AfC. I cannot see the draft any longer so you may want to ping the original creator. Thanks for the notification. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you reviewed the following wiki page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Adapted_Physical_Activity It has since been updated, but there were also some suggestions that I would disagree with. Comment: All sources are from IFAPA. You will need to provide independent reliable sources. Also consider if this deserves it a separate Wikipedia article or if the information can be included in an already existing article. CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC) - there is no other already existing article. Please provide a link for what you suspect is the same. The page adapted physical education is one specific domain of adapted physical activity. Comment: A quick search finds that this is more likely suitable to be covered under Kinesiology. CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC) - This is one potential area of kinesiology, but also fits under rehabilitation and sport management, so it deserves a separate page to Kinesiology alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwokng (talk • contribs)

@Kwokng:, link was provided in the decline reason. Being that there are still plenty of references in the draft that are from the IFAPA despite the comment that you need more independent sources, I don't think the draft is ready for me to take another look. Feel free to resubmit and maybe another editor can review. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks so much for your feedback on the 2050cards article (my first article). I've just added a new reference to the article as well as some information that highlights the notability of the organisation. Please let me know if it needs more work of if its ready for me to 'resubmit'?

A few friends of mine would also like to contribute - would that help me to get the article approved (as one of the founders of the business I have registered a conflict of interest whereas they do not)?

Best wishes,

Benjy

There is a chart at WP:ORGCRIT that will assist you with the sourcing required. The additional ones you added to not meet the criteria. As far as other people contributing, that in itself does not add to notability. It comes down to the sourcing, not the contributors here. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate your time reviewing the draft that I've been writing. I've taken the suggestions from Teahouse, and the previous auditor(?), and applied them as best as I can.

The article is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fantech

To draft this, I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razer_Inc. as a reference on how it has been written, as it's a company from the same industry and area of the world.

I have a few questions:

1) If I find more credible sources, should I remove the less credible ones? Or simply add the more credible source(s)?

2) Is there any sources in particular that are bad on the source list? I've used an awards organization (Top Brand - https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Brand_Award) that uses statistical sales data to source some content, as well as e-sports news sites that provided picture proof and their own research into statements from notable companies like Riot Games in reference to the brand (and a contreversy that happened surrounding the brand, from a streamer that was sponsored by Logitech). One source was from Bisnis Indonesia which has its own Wikipedia page, and is well known credible source. Even one of the sources is from Detik.com, as well. One of the sources is from SWA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWA_(magazine)) as well, which covers a full article on the company, not a passing mention. Even a source is from Enthusiast Gaming (Upcomer), and from Ginx TV as well as Philippine Entertainment Portal. One of the sources is used in "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_in_India" as well (AFKGaming) for multiple references. If all these sources are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages and are used to source other wikipedia, then why is the content they write about not considered notable enough to use as sources on this one?

As it is a large gaming company, with rich history, I think it could be relevant here on Wikipedia, as there are other brands (such as Razer), that have articles about them. But since this is an Indonesian/South East Asia company, it's unlikely that they've had coverage from US news sites like CNN, New York Times, etc. They gained a lot of awareness being involved in a large game streamer's controversy, being the first Indonesian gaming company to go international, etc, which I all think is quite notable, especially the last point. I've sourced each of those as well.

Thanks! Sorry to trouble you, just trying my best to improve this and contribute! And thank you for putting up with me editing this message so much.

LythPython (talk)

@LythPython:, thanks for the questions. First, never use another page as an example. There are many pages in Wikipedia that do not meet guidelines and have not been addressed as of yet. Using a page that doesn't meet guidelines will lead to you creating a draft that doesn't meet guidelines. As far as references, please see WP:ORGCRIT for what is required for companies. There is a chart there that you can use to determine if a source you are using is sufficient. I would suggest replacing bad sources with ones that meet ORGCRIT so as to avoid WP:OVERLINKING. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can do! I'll do my best to replace those lower end sources, and see if it suffices. Thanks! LythPython (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]