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 is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
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.
@DGG: Just wanted to give you a courtesy heads-up about my submission of this article which will likely require your approval. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Thank you for your review. Can you give me a little more guidance:
Do you believe this article has any chance at all? Should I stop and give up? Is this a waste of volunteer time to resubmit with modifications? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From your comment, I gather that the entire section 2 should be deleted. Could you name the other sources that are not "Reliable Sources for notability"? I will remove them. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you declare your editing for pay, unlike so many others, but one of the problems about paid editing is the question of how a paid editor can reasonably expect volunteers to do the work for which they are getting paid? But i always give more general advice when asked: in my comments at AfD , I argue for deletion when some or all of the references are about multiple products where this firm is only mentioned, or indiscriminate write-ups in local papers, or are mere notice of financial investments or staff appointments, or the sort of interview where the company representative is allowed to say whatever they which--and that is understandably enough to promote their company.
I try to avoid confusing my own views, which is generally that there should not be articles on companies of this level, with what will likely be the view of the community. As for judging what the community will accept at AfD, decisions there are so erratic that neither I nor anyone can really predict, except in the most unequivocal of cases. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can't know for sure, but I beleive reference are good enough that the article is WP:LIKELY to survive WP:AFD if nominated. Thanks for removing promotional material. ~Kvng (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DGG has indicated intent to nominate this for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
not exactly. I said I would "consider sending to AfD to let the community decide." I don't regard my opinion as the final word, and if someone reasonably thinks I should give an article a chance at a wider decision, I will do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
