User talk:Ct28ofs

Hi, I'll shortly post the text here. This is to give you a chance to work on the text with a view to recreation. If the text stays where it is or on on your user page, it will be deleted again.

If you recreate, you should provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines for companies. The previous attempt was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. There was nothing substantial about the company to show notability (number of employees, turnover etc, but there were unsourced claims like Its search technology explores relations between items in real-time within and across data pools and formats... "next-generation"... combines search with collaboration features to capture employee knowledge around data... process and enrich them... searching through 38 million datasets... in this case helping businesses and end-users make sense of data and information around them The Index Features are presented as fact without a source, and the patent numbers section is pointless spam. There are no comments on any shortcomings or negative reviews.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sandboxed version is better, and I've made a couple of minor formatting/MoS fixes. The main problems you still have are

The article still has a spammy feel, because it's all about products and awards. There was nothing substantial about the company itself — I don't know whether it has two employees or 2000, whether it makes $millions or peanuts
For the same reason, it's not clear that notability has been established. I have no idea how significant the Frost and Sullivan awards are, there is no Frost and Sullivan article, so you need to give a non-spammy indication of why this matters. Is it a national independent award or a trade jolly?
Again, there are no comments on any shortcomings or negative reviews.

It's up to you when to repost, but in my view you need to do what you can to address the remaining issues. I don't think that it would be speedy deleted now, but a deletion debate might be instigated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you repost, just click move the page to article space, or copy to Q-Sensei Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ailyn Perez concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ailyn Perez, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Ailyn Perez[edit]

Hello Ct28ofs. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Ailyn Perez.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ailyn Perez}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]