Talk:Darnytsia (company)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 19 August 2021 by reviewer Jovanmilic97 (talk · contribs).

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Kirotsi (talk · contribs) has been paid by Pharmaceutical company “Darnitsa” on their behalf.

Draft discussion

Hello, Tamingimpala! Thanks for taking the time to review this draft! You left two comments corp and adv. These template explanations are very general, please help me understand the specific problem. Below I comment on these two points. --Kirotsi (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

corp

Sources used in this article include independent secondary scientific publications (eg, #7, #14) and journalistic publications (eg, #18, #28), as well as two third-party encyclopedic sources (#13, #15). These sources show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

In my opinion, the sources just listed demonstrate the subject notability according to the requirements of the General notability guideline and WP:CORP. --Kirotsi (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

adv

There are three clearly dependent sources in the article (#1, #32, #33), and most likely dependent source #23. I have used these materials as links to cite unremarkable facts. These facts do not affect the confirmation of the subject notability.

For example, #1 is used in the infobox for net_income parameter. Companies are required to file financial statements annually and are held liable for false information. Therefore, I have no doubt about the financial reporting figures that the company provides in the press release. #32 concerns the company's membership in a business association.

Source #33 contains the names of key persons in the company. According to Template:Infobox company, it is recommended to specify up to four key individuals closely associated with the company. #33 contains references to these persons and the format for recording names.

From source #23, I used data from the warehouse department. The information concerns the fact of the construction of the warehouse and its characteristics.

The draft contains 36 cited sources. 3 + 1 dependent sources for minor facts and do not affect subject notability. These resources can be removed. This does not affect the verifiability of other facts. Therefore thе verifiability policy and others will be fulfilled. --Kirotsi (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamingimpala, please tell me where am I wrong? --Kirotsi (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirotsi, the whole draft reads like an essay to promote the company (obvious when you're paid to edit on behalf of them). Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Article about a company is not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. And the sources that you pointed out, many of them are releases of statistical data, press releases, marketing materials, rankings, annual reports.

Imagine that a draft article on Acme Inc. cites four sources: a single-sentence mention in an article by The New York Times while pointing out a missing feature in a rival's product when compared to the product by Acme; an extensive company profile in a Forbes blog by a non-staff contributor; a blog post by a tech enthusiast who has provided a review of the product; and a court filing by a competitor alleging patent infringement. Analysis:

The New York Times article is reliable, independent, and secondary – but not significant (a single-sentence mention in an article about another company).
The Forbes blog profile is significant and secondary – but not independent or reliable (most such posts are company-sponsored or based on a company's marketing materials).
The tech blog review is significant and secondary – but may not be independent (blog posts are often sponsored) and is not reliable (self-published sources are generally not reliable, unless they are written by subject-matter experts).
The court filing is significant and reliable (in that the court record is a verified account of a legal action being taken) – but not secondary (court filings are primary sources) or independent (they are written by the parties to the legal action, which have a vested interest in the outcome).

Therefore, the article does not have a single source that could be used to establish the notability of the company, let alone multiple sources.

Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Ranking in magazine's or outlets list, hits, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as amount of revenue or raised capital) do not make the coverage significant. Some of the sources only contains trivial coverage.

In any case, Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Tame (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamingimpala, thank you for your comment. I will analyze it. --Kirotsi (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]