User talk:Jstotts
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Actimize. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actimize. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Related commentary[edit]
Hi, Jstotts. The article is better and removes my concerns about spam, but we need something in the way of notability evidence. For the purpose, I'll direct you to WP:RS, as it describes what we look for insofar as sources go. I hate to say this, but as LP companies are generally invisible to the public eye, I'm rather concerned that this will be hard to find. Please, PLEASE prove me wrong on that! =)
Also of note is the conflict of interest in the article. To sum that up, it's extremely difficult to write an article sans bias when you're connected to the subject (i.e., they tend to sound spammy), so this is, in a nutshell, very much discouraged. Clearly, you are not a spammer, but from what I can tell, this is where the promotional flavor of your article comes in to play.
--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Me again. there's progress made, but we still have the problem of the notability.
Take it from a different approach: many people reading Wikipedia are not going to be concerned about LP companies per se, but they would be more interested in a LP company if they did something that's generally interesting to the general public. Keeping theft down, if not eliminating it entirely, as well as the buzzwords, is not interesting in that regard - it's a common practice of business. So go from a different approach: how have they innovated the industry? Are they a first in something? What has Actimize done that would make the average customer at a branch of, say, Bank of America look at the article, and say, "Holy crap, that is damn cool!"? To use a different example, look at FedEx - aside from being one of the largest international shippers with a rich history, they were the first airline company exclusively dedicated to freight and basic courier service that used a particular routing model, innovated computerization of package tracking, among many other things.
It's in this where my concern about lack of notability lies. Most LP companies prefer to remain invisible for obvious reasons: if you ever look at a grocery store, LP officers will patrol undercover, and only those who would lift the store need be concerned about their presence. They don't want to be seen.
This said, I am also going to direct you to WP:CORP. This explains notability requirements for corporations and such.
--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)