Liam at TicketSource

Re: Query over the status of the TicketSource page edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding your second question — do you want me to userfy the page? "Userfication" can be done when a page is deleted on grounds such as lack of importance: the criterion in question doesn't apply to pages in your userspace, so I can undelete the page and move it to a title like User:Liam at TicketSource/Article draft. There, you can work on it at your leisure, and when you're ready, you can move it back to the original TicketSource location. Does that sound reasonable?

Regarding your first question — your text made it sound like TicketSource was just an ordinary company, not something significant that would be likely to appear in an encyclopedia. Here's what you wrote:

TicketSource Ltd is a primary ticket seller and developer of a cloud-based ticketing system of the same name. Established in 2004 - they originally offered services only to UK based event organisers but have since expanded to offer services in the USA, UK and Europe. They are a member of Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers.

The "infobox" on the right side of the page said that there were just 15+ employees. This, too, was a big reason for the deletion: most companies with approximately fifteen employees are nowhere near important, because encyclopedias are generally interested in major companies, not in small businesses. On one level, I don't have any suggestions at demonstrating importance: as I see it, TicketSource is just another small business, and unless you can demonstrate otherwise, it's never going to be important unless it gains a much larger share of the market.

However The most solid way to prevent deletion, for any entity, is to demonstrate that it's gotten solid coverage in reliable secondary sources. Can you provide some? Reliable sources are those published by solid major publishers: books from academic presses, governments, or major commercial publishers; academic journals or other standard scholarly publications; governmental sources; major media. Also, these need to be secondary: news articles about stuff that TicketSource is currently doing are primary sources, because they come from the time of the event. Secondary media sources are those that discuss what TicketSource did, e.g. an article reviewing what happened several months ago. Finally, "solid coverage": you need something that discusses TicketSource in detail, rather than giving it a passing mention.

Does this make sense? If it doesn't, or if you have any other questions, please let me know — just leave a note on my talk page, like you did just now. And be sure to leave me a note if you want me to userfy what I deleted. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, it's now at User:Liam at TicketSource/Article draft. Sorry for the delay of some hours; I'm in the USA and haven't been awake very long. Your words have more solidly convinced me that your company doesn't qualify for a Wikipedia article. Again, we need sources like books and academic journals that give extensive and independent coverage; simply being mentioned on the websites of your customers is none of those. If you've been getting media coverage, is it retrospective (e.g. The Guardian runs an article about your history), or is it just news reports on your current activities? If the news coverage is just about your current activities, it doesn't count because it's just primary source coverage: news sources, by their nature, don't have a sense of historic context and can't determine what will be significant years in the future. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your followup on this issue. The draft still needs secondary source coverage. I looked at all the sources (except for the ones from TicketSource's own website), and all of them are either news reports (again, encyclopedias provide a summary of the secondary sources, not a summary of the news reports) or are pages with minimal coverage at best; I couldn't assess [1] because it's not working, although I can't tell if this is because the website's down or because somehow it doesn't connect well with my American IP address. Content attributed to a source needs to be in the source; [2] doesn't even mention TicketSource. So please find some secondary coverage (I can provide you with resources to help you assess primary/secondary/tertiary, if you want) and expand the draft with them. Three other issues, although these aren't related to whether the writeup is ready to be an article again: (1) Just please watch it's and its. (2) I appreciate your willingness to include the awkwardness about The Times criticising TicketSource — if we had secondary coverage, that bit would definitely belong. So very very often, when people with a company write about their company, they only include the positive bits, and problematic bits they do their best to hide; the fact that you're willing to acknowledge this incident makes you stand out positively. (3) Would you please use full citations, instead of just giving the URLs? Among other things, this tells us what the link is, what it's about, and when it's from; this is particularly important when a link dies, because the full citation provides information about the former page. I've converted one of the working links into a full citation as an example for what can be done with the others. And as with anything else, let me know if you'd like additional help on link citations. Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cheers for the reply and the direction, I'll keep plugging at it and hopefully we'll get there :D Liam at TicketSource (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

File permission problem with File:Big Weekend 2017.jpg edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for uploading File:Big Weekend 2017.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 23:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know, the company I work for is a sponsor and has been distributing these ads. I'll request written permission from the original publisher and forward it to that e-mail address shortly. Liam at TicketSource (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply