User talk:Linamiko

Your submission at Articles for creation: Airfocus (April 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by 331dot were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Airfocus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Airfocus Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:331dot&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Airfocus reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

331dot (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

COI
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @331dot, I have declared the conflict because the article was written about the software my employer produces. I have read the guidelines carefully and declared the conflict accordingly. Is there anything I should have done differently?
 * I would also love some more feedback as to what makes the article sound like an advertisement. I am happy to amend those issues promptly. Linamiko (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you are editing about your employer's product, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure instead of the COI disclosure. Employment is sufficient to trigger this requirement- you do not need to be specifically paid to make edits. If your superiors have asked you to be here, please read WP:BOSS(maybe read it even if they haven't) and have your superiors read it too.
 * Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a product and what it does, or routine activities related to its development(like raising funds to finance it). An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the product, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable product.  We don't want to know what the makers of a product say about it, we want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with the product say about it.  This is usually very difficult for people in your position to do. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for taking the time to explain.
 * So, just to make sure I understood correctly: The main issue is that the sources aren't reliable/ diverse enough for the topic to qualify for a Wikipedia article, right? The other issue about the paid editing disclosure is essentially an easy fix. Linamiko (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes; most of your sources are either the company itself(to document the features/etc. of the product) or announcements of the raising of funds to develop the product. Those things don't establish notability(though if notability were established, those might be valid article content).  Is this product particularly influential on an industry or industries according to independent sources? (for example Microsoft Windows has 70% market share) Do others attempt to emulate it?  Have professional software critics/reviewers reviewed this software?  Things like that. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks so much again for explaining! Linamiko (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)