Talk:Digitcom

Deletion challenge

I have deleted the self-aggrandizing 'History' section of the entry plus the edited the overly effusive adjectives. I do believe that these edits properly conform the entry to Wikipedia article standards. InterconnectJWiener (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it still fails, due to the primary source of the article being the subject's own website. It still qualifies as advertising, barring a fundamental rewrite and sourcing to places other than the subject's own website. Strikerforce (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In regards to primary sourcing, I have seen other similar entries (Comwave for instance)that utilize their own websites as primary source material. Otherwise, I have rewritten and edited portions of the piece, removing the overabundance of website references. InterconnectJWiener (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, that is not supposed to happen. In the future, if you come across an article where that is the situation, you could place a {{onesource}} or {{primarysources}} tag on it, as appropriate, to alert other editors of the need for better references. In regard to this specific article, I will look it over and if the necessary improvements have been made, possibly remove the CSD tag. That does not necessarily mean that I won't nominate the article for deletion through the standard articles for deletion process, should the article still meet the criteria for that, however. Strikerforce (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As a footnote, I have tagged the Comwave article for improvement. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Strikerforce (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added several additional sources for the article. InterconnectJWiener (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)