Talk:PIXELearning Ltd

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability

I'm not sure that this company meets the notability criteria. The writing about it doesn't seem to rise to the level of nontrivial, and while it is mentioned in Financial Times, that source describes it as a small business, a start-up employing only eight people. If it isn't deleted by the speedy deletion criteria, I'll probably send it on for a deletion discussion at AfD, unless much better sources get added. I think that the author has a conflict of interest, because it's hard for me to think of many people outside the company who would be interested enough to create an article on this subject, or who would have the necessary information- the cited sources don't confirm most of the information in the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you said. The original version had references to "our" product and "our" location which set off big COI warning lights in my mind. Also, the username of the author is the same as one of the employees listed. Apparently she's still working on the article now and is kind of miffed that I had to remove some of the spammier content. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a comment as the author; I understand that the content on wikipedia must be nontrivial and of notability, we only began putting this article together today, and would like a little bit of time to try to improve it. Also I would appreciate it if you could keep comments on a professional level. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenroutledge (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy deletion request as I don't think the article in its current form is purely promotional. I agree with FisherQueen's impression that the organisation may not meet our notability criteria, though. Helenroutledge, if FQ does take the article to an Articles for Deletion discussion you'll have seven days to present any other sources and argue for its inclusion if you want.

FisherQueen, if you do AfD this would you mind dropping me a talk page note? I'm editing at a low rate at present and it's easy to miss things on my watchlist. Cheers! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author, no one on this talk page has said anything 'unprofessional.' But your comment didn't address the two major problems- that this company seems simply not to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and that you appear to have a conflict of interest. I understand that you want more time to work on the article, but that is only useful if the company itself meets the criteria, which is not likely to change over a matter of days. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Presentations and Conferences

I have removed this section as it does not seem to have any relevance to the rest of the article. I mean, I know that it listed three employees of the company attending conferences, but it did not show why these appearances were in any way notable. (Other companies' articles do not include lists of trade shows, conventions etc. that their employees attended, except on the scale of Steve Jobs going to Macworld, for example.) It's an easy revert if there is a serious objection. Regards Kittensandrainbows (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on PIXELearning Ltd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]