I have created a new entry with better sources that weren't available when the first entry was published. I have also tried to contact with the user that deleted the old entry to know his or her opinion about the new entry.
Ikerm (talk) 08:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Mark Arsten: I was going to speedy this as a G4 but the creator says that he contacted you as the deleting admin to know if you were OK with this version. I don't know if there are signifcant differences but there is very little in depth coverage over and above the usual PR releases and associated web pages. Is there a way seeing if this is a G4 candidate or not? Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
- Hi, Domdeparis. I wrote in Mark Arsten talk page. And he wrote back in his talk page, not in mine one so I didn't see his answer. I have seen now that he wrote this sentence: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline". I wrote this Wikipedia entry mimicking this one Doka_Group. I would like to write a useful entry about this business. What should I do? Which structure should I follow? Sorry for any inconvenience and thank you for your advice. Best regards Ikerm (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the article is written from a perspective that is too close to the subject. Therefore and based on the information and references, I will try to describe it from the outside, so I will delete some sentences and some contents that are not encyclopedic or are promotional and I will gather the information, making it more compact.--Miskito89 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
