Talk:SaleCycle
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 April 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SaleCycle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarification about the subject's Draft
editHi everyone, I'm making this clarification in order to step forward improving the article: I published the article in the mainspace despite the fact that was in the Afc submission process. The Draft was declined 3 times so far and 2 of them were due to my submissions due to notability issues. I cannot be responsible for the previous edits but I can say that before I handling the article it had neutrality problems and almost none reliable, third-party, independent references. I undertook this action because of the following series of events:
- In the first declination, the reviewer's comment was: "Still needs any further available amount of in-depth third-party news sources overall".
- I tried to reach the reviewer in order to get a clarification about its comment, with no response.
- I tried to follow the recommendation in the comment and I added more sources, trying to stablish the notability of the subject, making my second submission.
- Still with doubt, I ask for help and got a broader feedback. I took the recommendations and suggestions.
- The article got its second declension about my edition, by the same reviewer, with the comment: "Frankly I simply believe it may be too soon for the applicable notability".
- Respecting the belief of the editor, I added the
{{notability|Companies|date=April 2016}}template by myself and proceeded to publish the article in the mainspace.
I know for sure that the article needs work, but I'm not a notability expert nor the right person to assure that have it (as the editor who made the changes)... I think its notable, and I warned in the mainspace about a possible notability issue, that's all.Edelmoral (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Notability template removal
editThe result of the WP:AFD discussion was Keep. The issue of the debate was the subject's Notability. The consensus reached indicate that the subject meets the primary criteria of WP:ORG, so it's notable and therefore I did remove the Notability Template of the article. Edelmoral (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)