This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
Hey Legacypac,
Thanks for taking the time to review Draft:PageCloud! Have to say off the bat that as a fellow Canadian I'm particularly impressed by your list of travel destinations... Hopefully I can say the same at some future point.
With regards to the article; at the outset I wasn't sure about being able to meet notability standards for the subject, but I thought dedicated articles about the company in the National Post and Globe and Mail (among others) would serve as credible sources because they are internationally distributed, published, reliable, and independent. I recognize that you probably see a lot of companies so the standards for notability are rigorous.
I'm trying to assess the likelihood of even getting this article accepted. I can provide additional sources but I just want to establish a baseline for what you would require to make this pursuit worthwhile. Thanks in advance for your help! Redavidwilliams (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Very hard for a new company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I've copied your comments here for the next reviewer. I always prefer someone else takes a look. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
COI
edit@JJMC89 and Redavidwilliams: What's going on with the {{Connected contributor}} template above and {{COI}} template on the article page? Where was this conflict of interest declared by Redavidwilliams? Mkdw talk 19:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
- Redavidwilliams added it to the article, so I moved it here, where it is supposed to be, and replaced it with {{COI}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: Thank you. Mkdw talk 05:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redavidwilliams: Absolutely under no circumstances may you remove the {{COI}} template from an article in which you have declared a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I am moving this back into the draft space as it was declined and the changes were not substantive enough to meet the concerns of the reviewer. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read WP:COIEDIT. Mkdw talk 05:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: If you strongly feel this article clearly meets our notability guidelines, then it may be moved into the article space -- however, I would recommend it not be approved and moved if it does not do so unquestionably. Previously, a massive undisclosed paid editing sock farm was uncovered, the editor community banned, and a sizeable unanimous consensus to have the articles deleted. PageCloud was one of those articles. I find the circumstances of this draft, the declared conflict of interest by this single-purpose editor, and that it was moved into article space after being declined by Legacypac to be troubling. Mkdw talk 05:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: I looked for some additional details regarding this subject (PageCloud) at sizeable unanimous consensus to have the articles deleted and I could not find any reference. Would you be able to help direct me? Thanks! Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- The consensus to delete all the articles created by the socks was reached at ANI. A list of all the socks is found at and a list of all the articles created was compiled at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Slew of articles from a prolific sock farm. Mkdw talk 22:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: I looked for some additional details regarding this subject (PageCloud) at sizeable unanimous consensus to have the articles deleted and I could not find any reference. Would you be able to help direct me? Thanks! Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Rather than sending it back to Draft I'd rather see it go to AfD for a decisive result. Legacypac (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: I hold no torch for this page and would have to look again at the sources to see which I felt confident enough about to remove the notability tag but I agree with Legacypac that AfD feels like the better next step for this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac and Barkeep49: Please feel free to move it back to the main space and nominate it for AFD. Mkdw talk 14:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- In doing a look at sources before moving I feel the Globe and Mail article is a significant independent reliable secondary source. Because Tech Crunch isn't reliable in most regards, given their posting of Press Releases, I don't see a second source to satisfy the multiple requirement of WP:NCORP. A 5 minute search didn't turn up any other sources so I will not be moving it back at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Thanks for taking a second look. Wouldn't Financial Post also qualify as a significant independent reliable secondary source? Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redavidwilliams: I will admit I skipped them this time around as I am unfamiliar with them and WP:RSN has no past discussion to help evaluate if they're a reliable secondary source. They were part of why I removed the notability tag the first time I worked on this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Financial Post is a part of Canadian national newspaper National Post, which is mentioned on WP:RSN as a reliable secondary source, with wide distribution and independently verified. I'm not sure if that changes anything! Redavidwilliams (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redavidwilliams: I will admit I skipped them this time around as I am unfamiliar with them and WP:RSN has no past discussion to help evaluate if they're a reliable secondary source. They were part of why I removed the notability tag the first time I worked on this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Thanks for taking a second look. Wouldn't Financial Post also qualify as a significant independent reliable secondary source? Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- In doing a look at sources before moving I feel the Globe and Mail article is a significant independent reliable secondary source. Because Tech Crunch isn't reliable in most regards, given their posting of Press Releases, I don't see a second source to satisfy the multiple requirement of WP:NCORP. A 5 minute search didn't turn up any other sources so I will not be moving it back at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Legacypac and Barkeep49: Please feel free to move it back to the main space and nominate it for AFD. Mkdw talk 14:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Legacypac, Barkeep49, Mkdw, and JJMC89: Hi there, I'm happy to provide details about my particular Conflict of Interest in this case but I can assure you I am not a paid editor, nor am I involved with any Paid Editing Farm. I'm not sure why PageCloud was previously flagged but this is my first attempt (and the only that I know of) to publish an article on this subject. After re-reading the COI editing article referred, I decided to step back from doing any editing to avoid any further issues or mistakes. On that note, removing the {{COI}} was definitely my mistake; I misinterpreted the meaning of the initial conversation here, but I have tried to be forthcoming about my connection with the subject since beginning this article. Sorry about any misunderstanding. Redavidwilliams (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Redavidwilliams: As a COI editor (regardless if you're paid or not) are you familiar with what you should and shouldn't edit now that it is in mainspace? Past actions suggest a review of WP:COI could be a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Thank you. I read it word-for-word this time around. All the best, Redavidwilliams (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)