Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I'm including these notes in an effort to help future reviewers understand why this is both notable and not a conflict of interest (I realize that it appears to be both at the moment):
22:21:02, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Jdriboflavin[edit source]
Jdriboflavin (talk · contribs) (TB)
Draft:Apache Arrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi – I'm a contributor to the open source software project referenced in this article. It looks like the article was submitted originally by someone affiliated with a commercial entity, and then that commercial entity was confused with the open source software project itself. It looks like the article has been stripped of those references and now points to a bunch of reliable non-commercial sources that talk about the project. But it seemed like a good idea for someone without a COI to review this before it is submitted. Thank you. Jdriboflavin (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, first off, thanks so much for reviewing the Apache Arrow article, I appreciate it.
The article has been declined as not notable, but in the references, Apache Arrow is mentioned in a number of reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For example, InfoWorld has over 1 million monthly visitors. ZDNet has almost 40 million monthly visitors for its site alone. I won't go through each of the other sources, but they're all online periodicals with significant readership and influence. Could you help me understand what other sorts of things you'd need to see here to view this as notable? Thank you!
109.145.42.244 ( talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I posted to the creation help desk some suggestions for how to make the article ready for submission. I haven't heard back, so I think I'll just go ahead and re-submit. I'll add a reference to Daniel Abadi's blog post, which I think is compelling evidence.
Regarding other comments made by reviewers of previous submissions:
Julianhyde ( talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This ZDNET Article might be a good source. According to
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles".
Cgbuff (
talk)
19:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I'm curious about this edit of yours where you added the {{undisclosed paid}} template. I'm all for getting rid of UPE, but it seems unusual that there would be UPE around an open-source project. COI, sure, but paid seems a reach. Do you have any specific reason to believe the author was paid for this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Theroadislong ( talk) 11:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I'm including these notes in an effort to help future reviewers understand why this is both notable and not a conflict of interest (I realize that it appears to be both at the moment):
22:21:02, 13 November 2018 review of draft by Jdriboflavin[edit source]
Jdriboflavin (talk · contribs) (TB)
Draft:Apache Arrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hi – I'm a contributor to the open source software project referenced in this article. It looks like the article was submitted originally by someone affiliated with a commercial entity, and then that commercial entity was confused with the open source software project itself. It looks like the article has been stripped of those references and now points to a bunch of reliable non-commercial sources that talk about the project. But it seemed like a good idea for someone without a COI to review this before it is submitted. Thank you. Jdriboflavin (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, first off, thanks so much for reviewing the Apache Arrow article, I appreciate it.
The article has been declined as not notable, but in the references, Apache Arrow is mentioned in a number of reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For example, InfoWorld has over 1 million monthly visitors. ZDNet has almost 40 million monthly visitors for its site alone. I won't go through each of the other sources, but they're all online periodicals with significant readership and influence. Could you help me understand what other sorts of things you'd need to see here to view this as notable? Thank you!
109.145.42.244 ( talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I posted to the creation help desk some suggestions for how to make the article ready for submission. I haven't heard back, so I think I'll just go ahead and re-submit. I'll add a reference to Daniel Abadi's blog post, which I think is compelling evidence.
Regarding other comments made by reviewers of previous submissions:
Julianhyde ( talk) 22:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
This ZDNET Article might be a good source. According to
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "ZDNet is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles".
Cgbuff (
talk)
19:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Theroadislong: I'm curious about this edit of yours where you added the {{undisclosed paid}} template. I'm all for getting rid of UPE, but it seems unusual that there would be UPE around an open-source project. COI, sure, but paid seems a reach. Do you have any specific reason to believe the author was paid for this? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Done Theroadislong ( talk) 11:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)