User talk:Shijianbiao/PacificTimesheet Company

Status

Currently this article is too promotional, and it was previously speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 (advertising) and under WP:CSD#A7 (fails to make a claim of significance or importance). I have restored it so that User:Shijianbiao can work on improving it. However there is no right to indefinitely maintain a promotional page in userspace, see WP:USER. If this is not improved toward acceptability as an article in a reasonable time, it may be deleted again. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your inquiry on my user talk page, I am sorry to have to say that these edits have made the page less like a plausible article than ever. The addition of more detail on the specific functions of the software makes the page (I won't call it an article) read more like a product flyer or company brochure than ever.

Phrases like "Pacific Timesheet solutions are focused on addressing three areas...", "Payroll Timesheet payroll timesheet solutions manage all aspects of payroll time tracking — from time capture, policies, rules processing, time off requests and tracking, time off accruals, request and timesheet approvals to integrating with payroll so that all data is electronically transmitted rather than entered by payroll clerks through data entry screens.", and "Pacific Timesheet time and attendance, time off and absence management solutions streamline and reduce the cost of managing employee time and attendance, time off and absences." read like they are written by an advertising agency. They may show why the product is worth buying, or better than others of its kind. They do not show why this product is significant, much less notable, in its field or in general.

What is needed here is to drastically cut the product description, while indicating any aspect in which the product is significantly different from others or is or was a leader in its field. Most of all what is needed is to provide citations to significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Independent means not from the company web site, nor from a press release, nor a vendor that sells the product, nor a "news story" that simply rehashes a press release. An interview with someone from the company is not fully independent, either. Blogs, fora, and self-published sources are not normally reliable sources. There must be some sort of editorial oversight and internal checking process, and a reputation for accuracy. Published magazines and other news stories are often reliable sources. Websites that are associated with a magazine or that have similar process to assure accuracy and reliability can also be reliable sources. So can published books or scholarly journal articles.

Google news search currently finds only two mentions of "Pacific Timesheet", one is a Press release, and the 2nd is a blog that says that it is "user driven". Therefore neither counts as a reliable source. The first 30 Google web hits all appear to be vendors, blogs, and press releases. That doesn't say there are not reliable sources out there -- Google doesn't index everything by a long chalk. But you will need to find and cite such sources or any article would quite probably be deleted in short order.

Please read our guideline on notability of corporations and our guideline on advertising thoroughly. Our guideline on conflict of interest may also be relevant -- if you work for or are in any way associated with Pacific Timesheet, you need to edit very carefully here. DES ^(talk) 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DESiegel I also searched "Pacific Time Sheet Company" and there is not a chance in hell this is notable. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI

You were given a chance by DES to improve this, but it's still just spam for your company. 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:Shijianbiao. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shijianbiao|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
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

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 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]