Talk:PageCloud

Request on 15:20:04, 29 May 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Redavidwilliams
Hey Legacypac,

Thanks for taking the time to review Draft:PageCloud! Have to say off the bat that as a fellow Canadian I'm particularly impressed by your list of travel destinations... Hopefully I can say the same at some future point.

With regards to the article; at the outset I wasn't sure about being able to meet notability standards for the subject, but I thought dedicated articles about the company in the National Post and Globe and Mail (among others) would serve as credible sources because they are internationally distributed, published, reliable, and independent. I recognize that you probably see a lot of companies so the standards for notability are rigorous.

I'm trying to assess the likelihood of even getting this article accepted. I can provide additional sources but I just want to establish a baseline for what you would require to make this pursuit worthwhile. Thanks in advance for your help! Redavidwilliams (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Very hard for a new company to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. I've copied your comments here for the next reviewer. I always prefer someone else takes a look. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

COI
What's going on with the Connected contributor template above and COI template on the article page? Where was this conflict of interest declared by Redavidwilliams? Mkdw  talk 19:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Redavidwilliams added it to the article, so I moved it here, where it is supposed to be, and replaced it with COI. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 00:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mkdw  talk 05:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely under no circumstances may you remove the COI template from an article in which you have declared a conflict of interest. Furthermore, I am moving this back into the draft space as it was declined and the changes were not substantive enough to meet the concerns of the reviewer. I strongly suggest you thoroughly read WP:COIEDIT. Mkdw  talk 05:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you strongly feel this article clearly meets our notability guidelines, then it may be moved into the article space -- however, I would recommend it not be approved and moved if it does not do so unquestionably. Previously, a massive undisclosed paid editing sock farm was uncovered, the editor community banned, and a sizeable unanimous consensus to have the articles deleted. PageCloud was one of those articles. I find the circumstances of this draft, the declared conflict of interest by this single-purpose editor, and that it was moved into article space after being declined by to be troubling. Mkdw  talk  05:38, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked for some additional details regarding this subject (PageCloud) at sizeable unanimous consensus to have the articles deleted and I could not find any reference. Would you be able to help direct me? Thanks! Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus to delete all the articles created by the socks was reached at ANI. A list of all the socks is found at and a list of all the articles created was compiled at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105. Mkdw  talk 22:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than sending it back to Draft I'd rather see it go to AfD for a decisive result. Legacypac (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I hold no torch for this page and would have to look again at the sources to see which I felt confident enough about to remove the notability tag but I agree with that AfD feels like the better next step for this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to move it back to the main space and nominate it for AFD. Mkdw  talk 14:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In doing a look at sources before moving I feel the Globe and Mail article is a significant independent reliable secondary source. Because Tech Crunch isn't reliable in most regards, given their posting of Press Releases, I don't see a second source to satisfy the multiple requirement of WP:NCORP. A 5 minute search didn't turn up any other sources so I will not be moving it back at this time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a second look. Wouldn't Financial Post also qualify as a significant independent reliable secondary source? Redavidwilliams (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I will admit I skipped them this time around as I am unfamiliar with them and WP:RSN has no past discussion to help evaluate if they're a reliable secondary source. They were part of why I removed the notability tag the first time I worked on this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Financial Post is a part of Canadian national newspaper National Post, which is mentioned on WP:RSN as a reliable secondary source, with wide distribution and independently verified. I'm not sure if that changes anything! Redavidwilliams (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It does as it suggests there are two, which weakly is multiple, secondary reliable sources who have given independent significant coverage. Obviously or  can still nominate the article for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm happy to provide details about my particular Conflict of Interest in this case but I can assure you I am not a paid editor, nor am I involved with any Paid Editing Farm. I'm not sure why PageCloud was previously flagged but this is my first attempt (and the only that I know of) to publish an article on this subject. After re-reading the COI editing article referred, I decided to step back from doing any editing to avoid any further issues or mistakes. On that note, removing the COI was definitely my mistake; I misinterpreted the meaning of the initial conversation here, but I have tried to be forthcoming about my connection with the subject since beginning this article. Sorry about any misunderstanding. Redavidwilliams (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As a COI editor (regardless if you're paid or not) are you familiar with what you should and shouldn't edit now that it is in mainspace? Past actions suggest a review of WP:COI could be a good thing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I read it word-for-word this time around. All the best, Redavidwilliams (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)