Dmalicki
Welcome
edit
 Getting Started Getting help
 The Commmunity |
 Policies and Guidelines
 Things to do | |
CleveMed subpage
editI have moved the text that you had put here on your talk page to the subpage that I had previously created for you: User:Dmalicki/CleveMed (there is also a link to it on your user page), so please continue to work on it there. I will stop by when I have a bit more time and take a look at it, but please take a moment to read the pages linked in the above welcome message for help with references, formatting etc. As the question you asked in your e-mail to me, if and when the article is ready, it can be moved to the mainspace with the same article title as before. Hope this helps. If you have any questions please ask on my talk page. – ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the e-mail -- I will keep the page on my watchlist so I will see when you have edited it, no need to e-mail me. In fact I don't monitor that e-mail account too closely so on-wiki communication via talk page is probably better. – ukexpat (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
CleveMed article
editI just reverted your deletion of the article issues tags as the issues are still there - it needs more references that are not self-references; it still contains peacock terms and I am still not convinced by the references that are not self-references that the company is notable -- you need to show significant coverage of the company in reliable sources that are independent of the company. Also, the article is still a little promotional in tone -- for example, I don't think the long list of awards is encyclopedic, maybe just the most important 5 or so would be enough. Hope this helps - I'll post the issues on the article's talk page too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- And please remember to use edit summaries! – ukexpat (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just put back some of the tags - see the talk page. The article is developing OK but the issues are still there. – ukexpat (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the recent message. The point is that notability, which is one of the key guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia, requires significant coverage in reliable sources. If there is no such coverage, then the company is probably not notable enough (yet) to have an article on Wikipedia. It's not a slight against the company, but as a tertiary source, Wikipedia has to rely on what has already been published in reliable sources. That's also the reason why self-references, such as the company's website, are not deemed reliable for Wikipedia purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)