User talk:HighKing/Archives/2017/May

nexla

Any reason you dropped some text for Nexla. Gokodogo (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Gokodogo, copyedit, removed unnecessary details and vanity editing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can You help me from proposed deletion of my article

I am new to wiki and need assistance from you regarding proposed deletion of my article regarding TempoGo — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamikshaTembhurne (talk • contribs) 04:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

SamikshaTembhurne The best way is to find sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. If you can find an article that talks about TempoGo which: 1) Isn't a PR announcement; 2) Isn't an advertorial (i.e. an article that presents as a news story but actually relies on extensive quotes/interviews from the Company; 3) Is "intellectually" independent - that is, it isn't an announcement from an investor or a "customer story" or "research" sponsored by the company;

If you find two sources, your article is in good shape in terms of notability. If you can't find sources, more than likely the article will be deleted.

You can always remove the PROD notice but you shouldn't unless you can fix the problem. If you remove it without fixing the problem, your article will then be brought to AfD and editors will examine the article and !vote to Keep or Delete. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

UTEX

Hi, i've removed three of the tags you placed on this article because they didn't seem accurate. The article has issues, yes, but three of these tags didn't appear to have any basis. Citations? Practically everything is cited. Notability? The article passed a speedy delete recently for this criteria. And recentism? I don't even know where that one came from if you read the article. Don't take this as an attack as it certainly isn't meant as one. I just don't understand how you managed to get the impression that three of those tags were relevant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, I disagree for the following reasons:

• Yes the article "survived" an AfD, but this was because the nominator withdraw the AfD (and it had only been there for 3 days and many regular and experienced AfDers had not had a chance to comment). The non-admin closure stating it was a "keep" is incorrect. The tag stating that The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations was added because from an examination of the sources within the article, all of them without exception fail to meet the criteria to establish notability, specifically they fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Rather than throwing it back into an AfD right away, I tagged the article to allow interested editors the opportunity to find proper sources.
• The tag stating This article needs additional citations for verification. was added because the article has a total of 6 references. 4 of these reference are from the company website and the remaining two are Press Releases. There are no independent sources in this article and this is a requirement for any statements of fact or claims in *any* article.
• The tag stating This article or section appears to be slanted towards recent events. is perhaps a clumsy tag. The article states that the company was founded in 1940, yet all of the facts and claims in the article that are cited are recent. I'm happy to leave this tag off the article for now.

I believe the first two tags should be reinstated. Let me know your thoughts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll agree on the second tag for citations as I hadn't checked the sources of the originals, however, i still disagree with the AFD tag as the article topic is nearly 100 years old and clearly notable. News info may be difficult to find from that far back as the internet wasn't around, but a quick read through the article shows clear rationale for a keep. Regarding the third tag, the likelihood of the recent info dominating is likely down to the recent sources again. If older sources from print media, etc, can be found then i'm sure this can be changed. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Besides, the AFD was clearly a case of SNOW, and before it was withdrawn there was only 1 person supporting delete (the original nominator). Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jenova20, thanks for the response. I've no problems agreeing to disagree but unless some sources can be found that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this article will be nominated again for AfD in the near future (possibly even by me if someone else doesn't get there before me. I'll give it two or three weeks). Now that you've checked the references (and it is odd that you !voted for Keep without checking them in the first place??) you can see that at least two sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability should be found (see WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND to assist in identifying problematic sources). Tagging the article (especially the "notability" tag) is the accepted way to let interested editors know that sources must be found. I've no problems with not putting the tags back into the article - yes, they can seem ugly but I'm not sure how other interested editors might then know that the article has some problems. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to add, perhaps this discussion should be moved to the article Talk page - at least editors would be aware that these issues were discussed. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll copy the entire thing over and lets continue it there now? Cheers ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)