This 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.
One more decent source (to satisfy the "multiple" requirement of WP:GNG) would suffice, in my book. As for online magazines, it depends very much on the magazine in question. If it has a print equivalent, you're probably fine; if it's only available online, you'll need to look for qualified editorial oversight and professional writers (rather than user-generated content). Let me know which magazine you're thinking of using and I'd be happy to evaluate it for you. Yunshui雲水 12:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have spent a lot of time on this article and have made some good improvements. The main thing that needs to be brought out right at the beginning is notability. In the first sentence, or at least the very first paragraph, the article must explain why this company is notable and encyclopedic and not just advertismic (reads like an advertisement). It may also help you to read about the five pillars and about what Wikipedia is not. You are welcome to submit the article; however, these are the types of things they will ask you. Forewarned is forearmed. Joys! – PAINE ELLSWORTHCLIMAX! 16:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
