User talk:Magdyshanna

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hallows AG (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Magdyshanna! Thank you for your contributions. I am Matthewrbowker and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 06:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Rommana Integrated Agile ALM
Hello, Magdyshanna! Welcome to Wikipedia.

I'm writing to inform you that your move regarding this page has been reverted. This article is not quite ready to be on Wikipedia yet, as it feels very promotional (prices don't need to be included in the article) and doesn't establish notability. You are quite welcome to improve the article in its current location. When you are ready for it to be reviewed, go ahead and put on the top of the page.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm very sorry about the confusion, and I hope this matter can be resolved quickly.~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 06:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is the article now so that I can revise it?


 * The article is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rommana Integrated Agile ALM.~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
~ Matthewrbowker  Talk to me 07:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text to the top of the article.)
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the [ reviewer's talk page]. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430  talk to me 23:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: your submission to AfC
I have already explained what the problems are with your submission, with this edit. Kindly refrain from repeatedly posting demands on my talk page and instead concentrating your time on improving your submission at AfC. You may wish to read this page of frequently asked questions about why AfC submissions are declined. Thank You. Pol430 talk to me 21:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rommana Integrated Agile ALM concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rommana Integrated Agile ALM, 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) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Rommana Integrated Agile ALM


Hello Magdyshanna. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Rommana Integrated Agile ALM.

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 and remove the  or  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:, 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) 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Draft sources
The sources you had provided on your draft(which I can still view as an admin even though it is deleted) are the following: None of these sources are appropriate for establishing that your company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about your company, showing how it is notable. This means that sources for establishing notability must be
 * 1) the company website
 * 2) your Linkedin profile, which is also a primary source, and is about you and not the company
 * 3) a profile of you, which is not an independent source and also not about the company
 * 4) a company profile that includes an interview with you.  A profile is little different than your company website and thus not independent; an interview with you, while it talks about the company, is a primary source and does not establish notability
 * 5) a press release, which is not an independent source
 * 6) another interview with you
 * 7) another press release
 * 8) essentially an advertisement stating some offerings of the company, this is not significant coverage and is not independent
 * 9) a description of a webinar featuring you, which is not significant coverage of the company itself
 * 10) a Better Business Bureau profile which would only establish their rating for your company, it is not significant coverage of the company to establish notability
 * 1) Independent- completely unconnected with your company, and not based on materials that it puts out, like interviews, press releases, and the company website. There are roles for those types of sources(see WP:PRIMARY) but they cannot be used to establish notability.
 * 2) Reliable - sources must have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control, such as(but not limited to) a media outlet or a reputable book publisher.
 * 3) have significant coverage - sources must do more than merely document the existence of the company, or merely report its activities or offerings. The reporting of routine business activities like the raising of capital, release of a product, or the commencement of operations, does not establish notability.  Wikipedia is looking for coverage beyond that, describing why others consider a company to be of note.  Ford Motor Company, as an example, is not notable merely because they sell cars all over the world, but because their company influenced manufacturing practices and had a profound impact on society through increasing mobility.  Microsoft is not notable just because it sells software and computers, but because of its impacts in various techologies and society as a whole.  Now, those are extreme examples, but the point is the same- you must have independent sources that decided on their own to describe the importance of your company.  If you have at least three of those, it may be possible for there to be an article.  Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I am totally amazed that you are calling industry magazines such as the SiliconReview, and the CEOCFOReview unreliable sources. When these magazines choose to write about a company, they do that because they believe that what the company is doing is important.  You do not seem to be willing to believe that the International Institute for Software Testing had a significant impact on the software testing profession by being the first to adopt an approach to certifications that no other organization did.  The BBB also decided to give the company an accreditation level of A+ on their own. Having said all that, I see many companies are featured in Wikipedia article where nothing of what you are saying is true.  It is irritating when many of those companies are competitors of us.  see for example:
 * International Software Testing Qualifications Board and TechWell Corporation. All sources are connected to the company.  I have to question why are we treated differently. Are we just unfortunate the you reviewed our article? Magdyshanna (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Magdyshanna - with respect, you are not reading what said . Nobody is saying that Silicon Review is unreliable. There are three completely separate criteria for sources which are valid for establishing notability - reliability is one of them, but independence from the subject is another. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
 * Again, 331dot expressed no opinion whatever as to whether the International Institute for Software Testing had a significant impact on the software testing profession: what they said is that you have not adduced an independent source that talks about the Institute. Of the ten sources that 331dot lists above, almost all derive directly or indirectly from you or the institute, and so are not independent. The last one may be independent, but does not contain significant coverage.
 * As I am not an administrator, I cannot see the deleted draft. But 331dot says that you have not provided even one source which is at the same time reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding I see many companies are featured in Wikipedia article where nothing of what you are saying is true., I believe you. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. In addition, standards have changed over time. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to identify some of these other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action.
 * The sources you provided may themselves be reliable, but that it only one aspect of what we are looking for, as quite correctly notes. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have marked TechWell Corporation as having similar issues to what you had written. Thanks 331dot (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)