Talk:Lattix, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Clarification

Our newly created article about Lattix has been marked for speedy deletion, but we are not sure why. We have written the article in the same fashion as articles from companies who are providing similar products in competition with Lattix, namely Coverity, Klocwork, and Sotoarc. Our technology is in use by hundreds of companies and universities around the world, so it should be considered significant. Can some guidance be provided to help us overcome this objection? Fwaldman (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This particular article is governed by the notability guidelines on companies. The rule of thumb here is noting whether the company has received significant or widespread coverage in secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the company (excluding company PR releases and information solely available on the company website—these sources may be used for additional information after notability has been established by secondary sources). All material must be attributable. For instance, the article asserts "award-winning". What awards? Can you demonstrate these?

I have removed the speedy deletion notice from this article because it does assert notability; however, it does not substantiate this assertion. It will need to supply verification of the information to avoid being tagged for consideration by other steps of the deletion process.

If you are closely associated with the subject, please carefully read our conflict of interest guideline. In such cases, you must be particularly careful to approach articles neutrally and without undue promotion. Statements like "provider of innovative software architecture management solutions that deliver software quality and lower risk throughout the application lifecycle" are not encyclopedic in tone.

I hope this is helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this guidance. I have removed the promotional statement and provided attributions from reliable secondary sources for the assertions. I hope that this will resolve the remaining tags. Fwaldman (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo5.gif

Image:Logo5.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)