That's where I see a potential problem. It's easy to say \"yeah, I looked at it\" without doing an even cursory search for sources. On the other hand, if meaningful examination is required, the whole deadline thing goes out the window. Looking through the prods that have been done, some of the \"mass prodders\" are actually doing a good job, using existing notability guidelines. Others are simply tagging articles because they're unsourced. Most people are going to be happy with the former, many are going to get upset by the latter approach. (Of course, there's always going to be subjectivity. Bali ultimate's prods of video game musicians looks good to me, but attracted the ire of others.)
That leads to a third point - how many articles can we handle I think that's really an unknown. It all depends on how many people choose to get involved. Keeping in mind the goal to get this done in a reasonable amount of time, I think any system needs constant monitoring. Are they getting done Is a backlog building up If we can get 100 people to do a minimum 10 articles a week, we could clear this up in a year. But the reality is that there are thousands that fail the notability guidelines, and that could be dealt with quickly people who know the guidelines well. But there will also be thousands that are important articles - third world political leaders, jurists, business and community leaders - but that will be difficult to source. And fixing these require a very different skill set. There should be a reasonable way to ask for 'more time', be it userification, movement to an incubator, or something else set up specifically for this drive. Guettarda (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to update the article, and have consulted the Notability guidelines, as suggested. I am an independent developer - unrelated to the developer of Sage - who has worked with this library, and (perhaps obviously) feel that it is of note. It seems that there might be several potential issues, and I'm trying to figure out how to deal with them - first, there is the fact that all three referenced articles were authored by the same person, Mr. Bosch. This is true, but they are all peer-reviewed articles, two of which were developed in concert with existing customers, regarding existing commercial work, and all three were presented at simulation industry conferences. Second, it could be seen as an advertisement, but given that it is offered as open-source work, and that the notability page refers to \"cleaning up\" a page so it doesn't read like an advertisement. Might this be a reasonable avenue
Hello! I am looking for assistance on how to improve the article I am creating on the Acorn Image Editor. I have based the general format of the article on comparable image editors that are listed under _graphics_editor such as and _Photo, but have so far received declinations based on notability and reading like an advertisement. I have increased the number of references to reliable and notable sources since the first draft. Many other image editor application pages list out the features of the application, so not sure if this is why it is deemed to be too much like an advertisement. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Regarding the latest rejection of the dartf page, I would appreciate some clarification on notability criteria. Specifically, I would like to know why journalists's interviews with the company, published in major Lithuanian news portals, do not add to notability. I have found another example here: -pulsas/karine-technika-nato-pajegoms-gaminama-ir-kaune.htm Another article here, this time reporting about upcoming investors in Lithuanian market: -uzsienio-investuotojai-i-lietuva-atnes-113-mln-litu-31261.html#ixzz2AJOWsdRq Both articles seem independent and noteworthy to me. Would they be appropriate to add, and if not, why not Thanks!Zubzer0 (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1e1e36bf2d