Lauloulew

Your submission at Articles for creation: Printerland (March 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Printerland may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 16:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Computer Risk Management! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EROS message 16:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Computer Risk Management", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

Deb (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Copyright on your submission

Greetings, fellow editor. Thanks for being interested at creating articles on Wikipedia. When reviewing draft submissions, reviewers will do a routine scan check for copyright infringement. The scan on your article picked up great similarity between the article itself and the sources you used as reference, enough to be deleted. Since the draft has been deleted, I can no longer view it. My apologies for that. However, you can contact an administrator to let you view your draft (RHaworth). On why it is been deleted - too much similar phrases/words. Moreover, you seem to have sourced its own homepage, www.printerland.co.uk/PrinterlandNews.aspx.. Although citing the website as your source, content must not be 'copy-pasted'. Instead, they should be restructured from head to toe in your own words. Cheers and happy editing. EROS ^message 08:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Eros, did it cross your mind to provide a link to the offending article? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @RHaworth: My apologies, here: Draft:Printerland. EROS ^message 09:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• @RHaworth: I tried to request that you send me the text from my Draft:Printerland article on your talk page, but you asked me to 'include the link to the page where it said you deleted the article'. As you can now see, you didn't delete the article. Can you email me my text now?(Lauloulew (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC))

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management.
• you gave some references, but few, if any, were independent third-party sources. They were either linked to affiliated bodies like Sale Sharks, or were repeating what the company or its management had claimed. It's not helpful that you have made up your own refrencing style, but that's not a reason for deletion.
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. Also, to show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, turnover or profits, but your basic problem is the lack of references that meet the new criteria.

• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: the company works with the biggest brand... are currently in partnership with companies such as Xerox, Samsung, Lexmark, HP, Kyocera, Oki, Epson, Brother, Canon and Ricoh... quickly grew to be a supplier of office printers to companies throughout the North West... quickly established as a provider of print technology to businesses all across the UK— and so on. Also, as with all company promos, you find space for a separate awards section, but not for any criticism of your company
• You have declared a conflict of interest as a paid editor. Thank you for declaring your interest, but that doesn't mean that you can write what you like. You are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing about your own company Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)