193.191.221.220

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:193.191.221.220. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=193.191.221.220|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Answer

I don't work for the organisation and wasn't paid or pushed to create this awful draft

reply

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Experience shows that when an article is created from scratch by a new user who has make no other edits, they are likely to be paid editors. You have said that in this case you have have no COI, so I've assumed good faith and struck the first sentence of my comments above. The rest of the guidance still applies, and I have doubts whether the company has sufficient notability as defined in the link above to merit an article distinct from the current page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Answer

I'm using their service (like 10 million people) and had simply created the page as their case was something unusual, yet there was nothing on Wikipedia.

I an confirm it has (currently) no merit for a distinct article from the main one. The page didn't exist back then, I had created the draft because their social media changes implied a huge upcoming announcement. Currently, all "news sources" talking about this are from a 2-3 day period matching with this announcement.

I had created the page under the assomption that they would encompass both services... and I was wrong as it is now established they are technically two different companies using the "same brand". Unless there is on Wikipedia a consensus about "related companies", the proposed page should be a part of the actual page.

The problem is that what they done is something huge for the community, but for someone outside, it's just a third-party service with a grey area legal status, and I doubt many truly-independant sources talked about this... I doubt every user of every video game ever deserves his own wikipedia page :) On the other hand, for Wikipedia, the new project is probably a notable fact as it was talked about by 4-5 websites in 2 days, but it is heavily based on their previous services 193.191.221.220 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've replied

Not sure if you noticed, but I've replied to your reply at Talk:Hypixel#Should a gameplay section be added to the article?. Sorry for not informing you (like more than a month) earlier. Huaqin (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

---