 | Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,236 pending submissions waiting for review.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Reviewer tools
|
Submission declined on 28 June 2024 by Garsh2 (talk).
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
This draft has been resubmitted and is currently awaiting re-review. |  |
| Submission declined on 17 June 2024 by HitroMilanese (talk). This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies. Declined by HitroMilanese 7 months ago. | |
Comment: This organization had a page that was previously deleted for lacking notability. Those issues do not seem to be addressed by this new version of the article. The coverage of this company seems to be only related to one merger event, which does not show notability. See WP:INHERITORG and WP:CORPDEPTH Garsh (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I saw this discussed at Deletion Review and thought I'd take a look here. I agree with the previous reviewer that the article is still heavily promotional. My advice is to remove all the subheaders and focus on what is most important for an encyclopedia reader to know (hint: a list of acquired companies isn't it). Consider what secondary sources say about the subject and what those sources say about why the subject should be included in the encyclopedia. And avoid jargon as in the first graf (what are "labor and inventory solutions"?) Explain, don't just repeat corporate talking points. I'll add for the record that based on analyst reports and existing news coverage this topic would pass the bar of notability, both under the general notability guideline and the more rigorous test for companies. However, the promotional tone needs to be addressed before this can go successfully through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
- reliable
- secondary
- strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.