User talk:Phantomsteve/Archives/2014/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Logicalis UK

Hi Phantomsteve - You deleted the page I was creating, Logicalis UK, in October. Could you please undo this action so I can edit the page to remove the issues with it? Kind regards, Bargyy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bargyy, thanks for contacting me. The issue with the page was that it read like a promotional piece for the company, and Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view.

Before considering whether an article should be re-created, it needs to be shown that it meets the criteria for inclusion - basically that it is a notable entity.

Before we can go on, could you possibly answer these questions:

What makes this company notable, as Wikipedia defines notability here?
Can you provide some reliable sources which are independent of the company, that would demonstrate this? Please note that blogs, twitter accounts, facebook accounts (or other social networks), or PR statements, etc are not considered reliable. The ideal sourcing is national/international newspapers or magazines (preferably with an entry on Wikipedia for the publication) where significant coverage of the company (again, not based on press releases, or significantly comprising of an interview with someone from the company) is found.

Let me know the answer to those 2 questions, and we can go from there!

Regards, and best wishes for a happy new year, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phantonsteve, thanks for your response. I understand why it was seen as promotional; my mistake (as a first time user of Wikipedia) was thinking that I could edit the piece as and when I am able to until it is ready to publish. My plan was to collate all information then remove what would prevent a neutral point of view. My aim for the page is to focus on the history of the company. To answer your questions; Logicalis is notable as it has been the subject of significant coverage from independent secondary sources. I am able to provide independant sources such as the BBC - the article discusses a survey Logicalis UK has recently published. Other independant sites include Computing where I paln to use various articles. And also The Register All examples of sources have existing Wikipedia pages; Computing, The Register and the BBC

Hopefully this is sufficient information to answer your questions; if not please let me know and I will provide more information. Thank you, Bargyy (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for giving consideration to the questions I posed! Here are my thoughts:

The BBC coverage would be useful as an additional source for a sentence, but not as a main source of information - the only information about the company (and bear in mind that the Wikipedia article would be about the company, not about this one piece of research) is "IT firm Logicalis".
The Register article is about a staff change, which is considered a "routine announcement" - not sufficient to provide information for an article as a main source. The information it could verify is who the MD is, what their previous position was, and that they are a "global IT provider's" based in Berkshire, along with staff/revenue details.
I'll be honest, and admit that I've not read too many of the Computing articles, but the ones I looked at (and the other summaries I read) were all "general"/"routine announcements" - items such as "abc has signed a contract with Logicalis", "Logicalis has been chosen to supply services to xyz" or connected with the same story (Logicalis acquiring 2e2's business).

The information in the articles generally provides a description of the company's business ("IT services specialist"), along with their headquarters location, and number of staff.turnover in the UK. I feel that any article created based on the information in these articles would basically be a list of clients of Logicalis, which would look almost like a promotional brochure! Reading many of the articles, many of them appear to me to be based on press releases provided to Computing by the company or their clients, although I may be mistaken in that!

What you could do is to create a draft article in your userspace (e.g. User:Bargyy/Logicalis) - there you could work on a draft, giving the information and sources. Be warned that if it is deemed to be promotional, it can still be speedily deleted, but if you write it in a neutral way, with information about the company beyond a client/product list, then it should stay long enough to work on it. Also, if there is no work done on it in a few weeks/months, then it might be considered a "dead" draft (especially if you have done no other editing on Wikipedia either), and it could be deleted. When you think it is ready for moving to the encyclopedia, then you can either move it yourself, or ask an experienced editor to look at it, and to suggest improvements, or for them to move it. See also Wikipedia:Starting an article and Help:Drawing attention to new pages.

I should point out that although I have been editing Wikipedia for a few years, and am an administrator here, that does not make me infallible. Other editors might disagree with me, and say that some of the sources you mention above are sufficient to show the notability of the company - again, create a draft in your userspace and work on it, as suggested above.

Finally, consider your reason for creating the article. I don't know your circumstances, but experience has shown that the following are bad reasons to create an article:

You work for the company, and your boss has asked/ordered you to create an article:

to promote the company
because "important companies have a Wikipedia article"
to show off to more senior people in the company/people in other companies ("oh, yes, we have an article, you know...")

You work for the company, and are one of those bosses, but want to do it yourself
Someone in your family/a good friend works for the company
You work for an advertising company who Logicalis has hired to work on their PR/advertising/etc.

You may not have any connection with the company (other than, perhaps, someone who has come across them in Computing, etc) - but you need to consider what is the purpose of the article? Would you expect the company to have an article in a traditional encyclopedia?

Anyway, just some things to think about - personally, I do not think the company meets the notability criteria for inclusion - but that is my opinion, others may think differently.

If I can give any other help (either on this subject, or other Wikipedia stuff), please feel free to contact me again.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

Traffic report: A year stuck in traffic

Arbitration report: Examining the Committee's year

In the media: Does Wikipedia need a medical disclaimer?

Book review: Common Knowledge: An Ethnography of Wikipedia

News and notes: The year in review

Discussion report: Article incubator, dates and fractions, medical disclaimer

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Fifth Edition

Featured content: 2013—the trends

Technology report: Looking back on 2013

Read this Signpost in full
Single-page
Unsubscribe
EdwardsBot (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
3	The Street Scene (talk)	Add sources
5	Heather Slade-Lipkin (talk)	Add sources
521	Spirituality (talk)	Add sources
33	Coca-Cola Orange (talk)	Add sources
173	Mufti (talk)	Add sources
138	Mexican Coke (talk)	Add sources
0	We Will Rock You: Australasian Edition (talk)	Cleanup
8	Mark Pendergrast (talk)	Cleanup
13	Enemy Mine (novella) (talk)	Cleanup
219	Skrull (talk)	Expand
200	Weathering (talk)	Expand
1	Rozmiar coat of arms (talk)	Expand
23	Honest Tea (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
59	OK Soda (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
6	Queen Mary's High School (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
21	NHS Connecting for Health (talk)	Merge
6	Cloak of Levitation (talk)	Merge
9	24 Preludes, Op. 11 (Scriabin) (talk)	Merge
6	Abraham Buford (talk)	Wikify
392	New Coke (talk)	Wikify
345	The Gods Must Be Crazy (talk)	Wikify
19	Johnny Angel Wendell (talk)	Orphan
1	Brandis Corner (talk)	Orphan
1	Crookgate Bank (talk)	Orphan
29	Coca-Cola with Lemon (talk)	Stub
3	Messingkauf Dialogues (talk)	Stub
7	Malcolm Jones III (talk)	Stub
3	Prelude in C major, Op. 11, No. 1 (Scriabin) (talk)	Stub
4	John Watkiss (talk)	Stub
15	Up the Junction (soundtrack) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)