Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ciklum

Ciklum

Not notable, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required per WP:CORP. Page was speedy deleted (G11) on Feb 18. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then surely G4 applies here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Has to be deleted via AFD to be G4'd. MuZemike 22:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys,

i see you put my page for deletion. My intention is to make a short entry about Ciklum and to place it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_companies_of_Ukraine

I have used references and wrote an unbiased plain fact description of the company. I believe this company deserves an entry in Wikipedia like any other that is listed on the link I have provided above. My intention is to let as well other Wikipedia users to this page to their best knowledge.

I am going to one more section with articles about this company. Yesterday this page was deleted without giving me a chance to voice myself.

I would greatly appreciate your help here.--Ciklum (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with most other articles about companies, the main argument for inclusion seems "this is a good company" and "it exists". To the author, who commented above, I would recommend going over WP:CORP before anything else. If you cannot establish that your company is notable for very specific reasons, its entry will probably be deleted. It's not enough to just write the article in a neutral tone. §FreeRangeFrog 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grumpy Keep First of all, it is NOT OK to come onto wikipedia creating a page for your own company when you have not made any previous contributions to wikipedia. You could probably get away with it if you created an outstanding, neutral article, and if you were a long-standing editor with a good reputation for neutrality, who had made numerous other contributions to wikipedia. So yes I am grumpy, and I would recommend, Ciklum, for you to refrain from editing this page until you have taken the time to become acquainted with how wikipedia works and have made ample contributions to other subjects. All that said, I see evidence of notability here: [1], [2], [3]. If you're going to expand to include other languages (Russian and Danish in particular), you will find more sources. My intuition tells me that this company is notable enough to be included in wikipedia. We should not let Ciklum's actions of using wikipedia as a platform to promote his company cloud our debate about whether or not this page should be included. Personally, I think it should be. Cazort (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also...welcome to wikipedia, Ciklum! :-) And don't let my grumpiness scare you away! It's really not a bad place to be, you just need to learn how it works. Cazort (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you Cazort for your note, points taken. I will add more references today.--Ciklum (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, two of those sources are from press release sites so likely lacking in neutrality (unless the first ref is by the initiative rather than the company) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Guys, I have just added more references to improve notability. To user MacGyverMagi: you can see that it is by the initiave itself. --Ciklum (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there not much articles about Ukrainian company's so all are welcome! I'll post the article on Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements so hopefully some other editors will look at it and improve it! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since the article isn't written like an ad I think it should stay. Närking (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this moment, I still do not see any evidence for ...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources... as required by WP:CORP. Most references are press releases or blogs. Only the Dutch "Computable" article is a reliable secondary source, as far as I can see. -- Crowsnest (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are 4 independent publications in there, computable (as was previously mentioned), itc.ua, internetUa, and establishingabroad.com. As for press releases sourses: as can be seen from them, they were done by Ukrainian Hi-Tech Initiative and not by the company. --Ciklum (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]