User talk:Mcleodm3

Hi Michael,

Relevant pages are WP:Referencing, WP:Notability, WP:COI], [[WP:Orphan. -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I've added a couple of references in my edit. This should support some level of Notability sufficiently until someone else edits more in.
 * 2) There's a rather large difference between the level of notability between Adobe Photoshop, and most other software. If ER has sufficient interest/support (whether by ER users editing wikipedia directly of their own volition, or random wikipedians amending the article per web and other references), then it will grow organically. Note that future editors may well decide that I've cut too much -- or, for that matter, not enough.
 * 3)  At some point in time, after sufficient edits by sufficient editors have made a properly blended article, I'd expect someone to remove the tag. Note that eg: CorelDRAW has a conflict of interest tag. I question whether you should be making (m)any edits to the article at this point -- please see WP:COI. There are many articles that that you could edit -- whether as a proofreader, a gardener, or as an expert -- where you don't have a COI. For instance
 * 4) Ideally it'd be deorphaned organically.

Hydronium Hydroxide - thank you for your feedback. On each of your points:

1. Thank you for clarifying. I will work to add better references. 2. The level of detail I was hoping to achieve was similar to what's done on the [Adobe Photoshop] article. I don't understand what that is an appropriate level of detail while what I included was not. Additionally, I tried to add reference photographs, but sadly don't have authorization to upload files. 3. What could be done to resolve the conflict of interest? Does that have to stay forever? 4. I'm not quite sure what to do about the article being an orphan, but I will investigate and try to find acceptable places to create links.

Thanks again, Mcleodm3 (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Michael, I've just reviewed your article Eli Review. Issues are: 1. Referencing: at least the first three references and possibly the fourth are not valid evidence for the existence/notability/history of Eli Review. Compare your references with, for instance,, which actually gives independent information about ER. 2. Level of detail: the Article is way too detailed for the notability of its subject, and much of the information belongs on the ER website instead (eg: versions, supported formats, etc). At most it probably warrants a couple of properly referenced paragraphs. 3. Conflict of interest: I have flagged this because you have one; note that this is not necessarily an issue. 4. The article is an orphan.

Regards, -Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eli Review


The article Eli Review has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable web service. Sources provided are about the underlying theory, mentions of this product are trivial/routine."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jdcooper (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)