Draft talk:TransCrypts

WP:Notability (organizations and companies)

First of a handful of new articles I hope to write in the coming weeks about Canadian businesses(which are under represented as a category). I am a newer editor and in the process of drafting this article got feedback from much more accomplished editors on whether this subject matter was worthy of an article. I was referred to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and told to see if my subject matter met the conditions of a business to be featured on Wikipedia. After sharing this particular subject matter's sources I was told that this does meet the notability requirements and I would like to share them below for any future editors.

- Published in numerous independent, and reliable publications. This company has had independent coverage from prominent publications such as Axios, Betakit(Canada's version of TechCrunch), two universities, and Bloomberg giving them an entire segment on national television for their work and impact. Many of these sources mentioned amount raised(a common metric for judging startup success) none of the article's mentioned were simply just fundraising announcements and rather focused on the company's history and solution. Particularly this company has received a lot of attention for their philanthropic efforts(which is more the reason I chose this company to be the subject of my first article).

- They were also feature in numerous industry publications including SHRM and the San Francisco Business Times.

- While this in of itself is not a reason for the company to be notable I do believe that the founder's inclusion in Forbes 30U30 list and the Globe and Mail ChangeMakers list for the company's work in Ukraine does further add to the credence that this company is notable not just for i

- Lastly, as a small note. I do notice Wikipedia notability requirements do differ based on the country in which the company is based as what is a notable source varies based on the country. Case in point American publications such as CNN, WSJ, NYT, etc are less likely to feature Canadian business. As such, from that point of view this company is quite notable as it has received coverage from more notable American publications and more Canadian focused publications. Greencheckconure (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I believe there are two stated issues with the article. One that I used AI to write it and the second that it contained promotional material.

Candidly, for the first issue I would encourage the editor ~2026-33118-72 who made said claim to go over the edit history. As is clear with the edit history I spent multiple days writing/rewriting the draft and shared the draft in places like Teahouse for feedback. The specific claim "Implausible non-existent citations or nonsensical references", again makes no sense on another review of the article. All citations point to specific notable articles. As is seen through the edit history and re reading the article the creation of the article was not at all assisted by a Large Language Model (LLM). I will reaching out directly on the user's talk page as well.

Regarding the promotional material. I followed the WP:NEWS & WP:NOTABILITY rules for that criteria. What makes this particular organization notable is its philanthropic efforts, and rather than make any biased claims I simply stated what multiple independent leading news organizations have said. This follows Wikipedia guidelines on stating News. If an organization has done verified good in this world that should be included in their Wikipedia page and this is something whose precedent has been set in other pages. Examples of other organizations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paani_Project (an org that builds wells in Pakistan) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia,_Inc. (please see social action section) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohere (for recognition)

Multiple for profit and non profit organization that have done verifiable good in the world(see WP:VERIFIABLITY) have stuff talking about their philanthropic efforts especially when that note worthy deed is covered by numerous independent publishers. In this orgs case, its philanthropic efforts were recognized by BetaKit(Canada's TechCrunch) multiple times, Forbes, Bloomberg(they brought the founder on a live section on national TV), The Globe and Mail(Canada's WSJ), University of Toronto, San Jose State, etc.

I would just like to finish off by stating, I spent dozens of hours combing through Wikipedia's various pages on learning how to write my first article. I spent time on Teahouse, I talked to my mentor, I reached out to editors across the community and got multiple opinions on the my work. I got a ton of feedback and I reflected that feedback in the article. I am happy to make edits to the work but I need to have a conversation if you disagree with my edits rather than just CSDing my work. I want to learn and I want to get better.

Kind regards 22:03, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Update Contested Deletions

Looks like the issue raised by ~2026-33118-72 were deemed an improper CSD by AriuCH. I appreciate that improper CSD was fixed

As for the second claim, after going to the editors talk page and requesting feedback on what I can do to make the article better, I was told "The only advice I can offer you is to stop submitting spam to Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia and not a vessel for promotion. This is the second attempt now at an article for TransCrypts, the last one was speedy deleted and the author blocked." This article should not be judged based on the actions of a previous editor or author. I was not the one who wrote that article and can't control the actions of a previous editor/author, and while I understand and appreciate Wikipedia has a large backlog on unreviewed articles and reviewers need to move fast this is not a valid reason for a CSD. Greencheckconure (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)