User talk:Kathieserrano

Your submission at Articles for creation: EviCore Healthcare (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Drover's Wife was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EviCore Healthcare and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:EviCore Healthcare, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kathieserrano! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a high bar for company articles: a company can't just get one because they want one. In order to have an article, there must be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject in order to demonstrate notability for Wikipedia. None of the current sources particularly count towards this: they're all press-release-like material from questionable sources. I would suggest it is probably unlikely that the company is capable of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Kathieserrano. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kathieserrano|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above

Please don't repost the text I've removed from this page. This page is for messages only

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kathieserrano, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Aumcore on behalf of eviCore for their contributions to Wikipedia.

More

Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. I notice that you have continued editing without responding to my COI request above, I've therefore deleted the new promo. Take this as a second request to formally declare any COI, and note that I will block this account if you ignore the message again. You don't appear to have read my comments above. Let me expand.

Your sources do not all meet the criteria linked above, often apparently being press releases or interviews with CEOs. One even had the invitation to tweet eviCore is proud to be part of this effort, and we are pleased with the study results showing use of the online tool helps expedite treatment approvals and reduce cancer treatment costs, hardly the indication of an independent third party source.
I see you now claim to have 4000 employees, which is notable, but no proper source for that figure, linkedin and other social media aren't acceptable. There is still no financial info.
It's still largely about what you sell, plus a bit of history. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: The company's solutions... to reduce costs and improve care using sophisticated analytical software.... You also have a "Award and recognition" section, always a good indicator of company spam, especially with a "tweet how wonderful we are" message in the "reference", but, strangely, no criticisms. Another indicator of company posting is ® signs, it's not our job to protect your registered marks

Your company appears likely to be notable, but you need to find better references and write more neutrally, with more facts. It's not hopeless, just needs more work. And you must respond to the COI request before you try again.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]