Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stealthmachines: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:But - there are two that I regard as being good quality. Once is the MaximummPC reference that appears tobe a reliable independent third party that provides details about the company and reviews a product. The other is the PCWorld reference - again meets the criteria. But two product reviews are not enough to denote notability - can you provide any more (that meet the criteria at [[WP:RS]])? [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++ </font>]]</sup> 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
:But - there are two that I regard as being good quality. Once is the MaximummPC reference that appears tobe a reliable independent third party that provides details about the company and reviews a product. The other is the PCWorld reference - again meets the criteria. But two product reviews are not enough to denote notability - can you provide any more (that meet the criteria at [[WP:RS]])? [[User:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgreen"><b>-- HighKing</b></font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:HighKing|<font face="Courier" color="darkgblue">++ </font>]]</sup> 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
It is worth noting that the PC World and MaximumPC references which you said were good were both cover page articles, not mere reviews. The Tek Syndicate is as big as MaximumPC with millions of viewers, and they have |
It is worth noting that the PC World and MaximumPC references which you said were good were both cover page articles, not mere reviews. The Tek Syndicate is as big as MaximumPC with millions of viewers, and they have StealthMachines on their website twice - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0 . I changed the article again, please review. I just want an article made, you can cut the article down to three sentences for all I care, I just want to have my first published article. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Argusg|Argusg]] ([[User talk:Argusg#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Argusg|contribs]]) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Revision as of 17:16, 31 January 2017
- Stealthmachines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A couple of product reviews & a BBB page IMO don't meet WP:GNG, doesn't looking like much third party coverage. Also given multiple attempts to create this article & some of the language in it this looks like WP:PROMO. JamesG5 (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Since this article was flagged for removal within seconds of its creation, to me this article was not looked over by the editor with the same care that I put into it. Maximum PC and PC World are both internationally recognized media outlets, and PC World is part of the massive IGN network. Tech Syndicate is a VERY popular alternative tech news outlet. The lesser sources provide additional legitimacy to the company/article, but are not depended upon for the article's substance (although they were included so that the article was more of a full read). The major sources of the article as the major outlets provide more than enough legitimacy to the article and its statements.
- Multiple attempts to create the article did occur, yes, as I was told after painstakingly making the necessary edits that my written article would be included. Also, comparable companies with comparable sources such as Digital Storm have gotten the nod for years, and yet my article which I have been doing my darndest to comply whilst working with reviewers has been declined.
- Thank you for your time. -Argusg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 06:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment @Argusg: Most of the references fail WP:RS as they are either a Google Search result (which isn't regarded as a reference at all), PRIMARY sources (those with facts/data attributed to the company or quotes from the company), Press Releases or simple business listings which are mere passing references. All of the Tek and Pax East references are promotional and PRIMARY.
- But - there are two that I regard as being good quality. Once is the MaximummPC reference that appears tobe a reliable independent third party that provides details about the company and reviews a product. The other is the PCWorld reference - again meets the criteria. But two product reviews are not enough to denote notability - can you provide any more (that meet the criteria at WP:RS)? -- HighKing++ 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the PC World and MaximumPC references which you said were good were both cover page articles, not mere reviews. The Tek Syndicate is as big as MaximumPC with millions of viewers, and they have StealthMachines on their website twice - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0 . I changed the article again, please review. I just want an article made, you can cut the article down to three sentences for all I care, I just want to have my first published article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argusg (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)