User talk:Flat Out

It is approximately 10:09 AM where this user lives (Melbourne, Australia). []

Talk Page Archives

Draft comment

With regard to the comment you recently made there, what claims in Draft:Paul Joseph Watson did you feel were unsupported by the sources? Please let me know so I can fix them. Everymorning (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As an example, "Paul Joseph Watson is a British conspiracy theorist, writer, and YouTube personality based in London, England.[1][2][3]" - I have read those sources and they only support that he is an editor and and writer. Flat Out (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Silverlake Axis

Hi Flat Out, I actually just replied Swister Twister's comment to let him know that Gartner and IDC (which are very reputable) do independent reviews of companies from different industries. All the company provides is raw data and maybe a company profile. The data is independently analyzed and compared against other companies in the same field. Business announcements and press releases are not part of what's provided at all. Those reports are only available with a Gartner and IDC subscription so I don't know how to show it to reviewers. The webpages I linked to are already where they're hosted. Mictan236 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mictan236 and thansk for your post. I'm always happy to defer to SwisterTwister but even if these 2 sources can be verified, I don't think its enough to get it across the line. Flat Out (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. I'm feeling pretty helpless about this, honestly. I've looked at Temenos' (another core banking company) page and it looks even sparser than mine. Do you think there's anything else I can do for this page? If it's really not notable then I think I'd better leave it instead of wasting more time on it. Then maybe I should make edits to existing articles for practice. Mictan236 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there sources out there that you've missed? A quick search and I came up with one you dont have Flat Out (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've actually seen that before, but I didn't know where to include it. Should I start a new section called "Share prospects" or something? There are a number of articles and blogs that tell people whether or not to buy Silverlake shares but I'm not sure if those would be considered reliable or just personal opinions. Also, how about analyst reports? These are independently done by investment banks. Mictan236 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Mictan236, the problem you have is that no-one is writing articles about the company. Flat Out (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's definitely true. Just gonna have to accept that it's not notable enough. Thanks for all your help anyway Flat Out.

Mictan236, anytime - there's lots of notable topics to write about so keep contributing! Flat Out (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

07:13:31, 16 January 2017 review of submission by 86.170.87.123

• 86.170.87.123 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Oladeji Olatunji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have appropriately restructured the contents of the page. Now, all accolades / nominations have been put inside a "Awards and nominations" section. This should help it appear less like an advertisement and more as an award/nomination since there are supporting citations to notable sites confirming the award or nomination.

I see that this draft has been declined by another reviewer. To be accepted the subject must meet the standard for notability at WP:BLPNOTE or at the least, WP:GNG. Put simple, read the the golden rule. Let me know if you need further help. Flat Out (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding News Source

• Mjiangscp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shore Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear FlatOut, as I am creating a draft for our company page, I've been benchmarking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel_Capital_Partners and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_North_Venture_Partners, and I don't see much difference in the quality of references between us and them. Could you explain what they have that we don't have? Company's like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Growth_Partners also used references from PE week, BusinessWeek, and The Deal as news sources and I'm wondering if it's okay to use references from these websites as long as they are secondary sources that offer independent insight as opposed to PR material?

Thanks!

Mjiangscp comparing to other articles is not always the best way to go, instead have a look at the criteria at WP:CORP. You can use press releases to confirm that something has been announced, but they don't add anything in terms of supporting notability. You need to show that the subject has received coverage in independent sources and this is explained succinctly in the golden rule. Flat Out (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

thanks

cool, thanks

take care — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memphisartguy (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pamela Ryder article

Hello.

I've added an additional reference, this time from The Huffington Post.

Irving Malin is a legendary critic, who's listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Malin

I also included D’Aoust’s review from the BROOKLYN RAIL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brooklyn_Rail), and Robert Glick's review in AMERICAN BOOK REVIEW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Book_Review). These are all reputable sources, as demonstrated that they've been vetted as reputable by Wikipedia itself.

Please advise.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmadera (talk • contribs) 16:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:37:57, 19 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cybotik

• Cybotik (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Whiskey Bards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft: Whiskey Bards

Please re-evaluate my draft according to the same standards by which the Wikipedia pages below were accepted. All of them have fewer sources than I do, and some of them use the same sources. You cannot claim I have too few sources when the articles below do not have as many. And you cannot claim that my sources are inadequate as some of them are shared with the articles below. I now have eight more sources than the first article on the list below, and the one valid source on that page is also one of my sources. If that article was acceptable, with only one valid source, then my article should be acceptable, since I used precisely the same source. If my article is not acceptable, then you are using different standards than other editors.

This Wikipedia page, Going_Overboard_(album), has only two sources, one of them invalid, the other is also one of my sources. If it is a good enough source for an already accepted page, it should be good enough for mine.

This music article, Rubber_Biscuit has only three sources, one of them You Tube.

This article about a band, Sparx_(US_band), has only two sources, plus a link to the band's website.

This musical show, EFX_(show) has only two sources.

Cybotik (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

19:01:38, 20 January 2017 review of submission by Cybotik

• Cybotik (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Whiskey Bards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please re-evaluate my draft according to the same standards by which the Wikipedia pages below were accepted. All of them have fewer sources than I do, and some of them use the same sources. You cannot claim I have too few sources when the articles below do not have as many. And you cannot claim that my sources are inadequate as some of them are shared with the articles below. I have more sources than the first article on the list below, and the single valid source on that page is also one of my sources. If that article was acceptable, with only one valid source, then my article should be acceptable, since I used precisely the same source. If my article is not acceptable, then you are using different standards than other editors.

This Wikipedia page, Going_Overboard_(album), has only two sources, one of them invalid, the other is also one of my sources. If it is a good enough source for an already accepted page, it should be good enough for mine.

This music article, Rubber_Biscuit has only three sources, one of them You Tube.

This article about a band, Sparx_(US_band), has only two sources, plus a link to the band's website.

This musical show, EFX_(show) has only two sources. Cybotik (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)