User talk:S0091

Draft: Muharrem Aslan

Hi, There is a new development about Draft:Muharrem Aslan article that you had rejected. A prestige independent magazine published a detailed bio (article) about the artist. Could you check the link belove please? https://www.mesam.org.tr/UserFiles/files/Dergi/34_Vizyon.pdf Page 46-47 user:Dreamboy3143 13:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Dreamboy3143 this is a publication by MESAM, which is a trade union that aims to protect the copyrights and collect royalties for its members so is not an independent source. It's probably fine to use for verifiability but not useful for notability. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @S0091 Thank you for clarifying. How about if 2 songs of the artist officially charted on Shazam - top 200 Turkey. Is this going to be useful for notability? Also, one of the biggest Turkish Tvs Show TV features artist’s music 5 days a week at the moment [[1]] . Can this also be considered within the notability criteria?. The artist's music features in this program https://www.showtv.com.tr/programlar/tanitim/didem-arslan-yilmazla-vazgecme/2742 user:Dreamboy3143 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Dreamboy3143 Shazam is not listed as one the accepted charts and appears to be a streaming service. The linked article is about show that covers missing people and the linked video is not about Aslan (or music) so I am not sure what that is suppose to be showing. Usually a musician meets the notability guidelines, at least in part, with in-depth critical reviews of their work by reputable independent publications/critics. S0091 (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Canright Rejection

Actually, I thought the Rejection was a bit harsh, although I 100% agree the person is not yet article-worthy. I have no intention of doing any more edits. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@David notMD yeah, I can see that and obviously my intent was to decline. The other issue was the infobox was missing the closing brackets so when they submitted both times, it looked like there was only an infobox with no content. I fixed it but it had also blacklisted sites so it took me a few minutes to work through all the issues In the middle of all that the other editor rejected. Anyway, it's clear they are not notable and sometimes it's better to rip the band-aid off so to speak. I see you have reached to the creator so hopefully that took some sting out of it. S0091 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Question

@Ivanvector, @Rosguill, pinging you here because it is a quieter place. Should the comments by DIVINE on Usertobecool's talk page, at least in part, be removed or OS'd? S0091 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

THanks S0091. Yes, I've removed that info, and let oversight know about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't seen them, so no opinion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Serendipity

@Usedtobecool I just so happened to be going through some my old AfC accepts/declines the other week and came across Draft:Prakash Neupane and wondered if I had gotten it wrong so started digging. The more I dug the more it all did not make sense. Had it not been for that, I probably would not have taken much notice of your AN filing. You've done some great extensive work investigating all this. Sorry for all the stress it has caused you and the threats you have suffered. If you quit, I understand but hope you don't. Did you notice the COI notices Divine left for various users before they flamed out? Interesting. S0091 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed S, I have noted but not tried to make sense of anything that's happened; taking a break from all that for a while, but I'll likely be around and look into it again after I've sufficiently refreshed. Most days, there are no other regular editors from Nepal at all, so I always worry about who's gonna be interested when I have to bring stuff up. It's a relief to see that case resolved. I was in shock more than anything through all that, to be honest. Thank you for yesterday and for reaching out to me today. It was nice to read what you and Liz and Josh wrote; a few people reached out privately as well. It was a nice change of pace after the last few days. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail

Best, --Blablubbs (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Propel (company)

Hi, I saw that you recently moved this article back to draft space due to the person accepting it in AfC being CU blocked. What should I do with this draft now? Do I need to resubmit it to AfC? Relatedly, I'm also curious if you can answer two questions. First, is it common practice for WP:DRAFTIFY to be used when a user is blocked? Secondly, can you give some thoughts as to why this is the only draft that was affected? Thanks, Mokadoshi (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, another user has re-approved the article, so this doesn't matter anymore. I'm still not sure why this article was targeted specifically, and you didn't leave any notification on my Talk page, but I understand you were busy investigating this user and perhaps you were planning on getting to it later. If you have concerns about the article, please let me know because I'm happy to address any feedback. Thanks, Mokadoshi (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mokadoshi apologies for not leaving a note. I don't draftify often and forgot to use the script which does leave the creator a message along with adding the draft template so it can be submitted. To answer your other questions, it is standard practice for editors to review the actions those who were here to undermine Wikipedia's policies and processes, as was this case, and undo them. As to why I draftified yours is because your request for a review is still on I'm tla's talk page and to be honest, was suspicious given the circumstances. They were not a prolific reviewer so a seemingly odd pick. Therefore, I thought a check by another reviewer was warranted which has occurred. S0091 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091 I understand. Now that you say it, I can see why my request on their Talk page is suspicious. It didn't occur to me when I posted above asking about what had happened. I asked them for help because it seemed like they were looking for articles to review. Of course now in hindsight I understand why they were looking to pad their stats and that's unfortunate. Unfortunately it sounds like you run into this all the time, but this is the first time I've interacted with someone rule breaking like this and it's been really eye opening for me. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Request on 21:22:11, 8 April 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by AliceMaiAnh

• AliceMaiAnh (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Valiant TMS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for reviewing the draft of Valiant TMS. After careful examination of our draft and research on other companies whose Wikipedia entry was published, we have a few questions regarding your comment.

1. "Press releases and anything emanating from the company are primary sources and blogs are generally not reliable sources".

We found multiple press releases and blogs that were listed as references in a few companies' Wikipedia pages, please see the list below. If these sources were accepted for these companies, why did we get declined for using the same type of references?

- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #13 is a press release ("ATS To Acquire Biomedical Research & Life Sciences Water Purification Equipment Provider Avidity Science". www.newswire.ca. Retrieved 2023-09-22.)

- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #2 is a press release ("ATS Reports Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2020 Results".)

- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #5 is a blog which is no longer accessible ("ATS founder Klaus Woerner passes away | ATS Automation". www.atsautomation.com. Retrieved 2018-11-09.)

- Nuro: Reference #21 is a press release ("Uber and Nuro Announce 10-Year Partnership for Autonomous Food Deliveries Starting in California and Texas". PR Newswire. San Francisco. PRNewswire. September 8, 2022. Retrieved September 9, 2022.)

- Starship Technologies: Reference #3 is the company's own article. ("About Us". Starship Technologies. 2016. Retrieved 30 August 2016.)

- Starship Technologies: Reference #24 is a blog/press release published on the company's website ("World record: Starship hits 2 million autonomous deliveries". Starship. Retrieved 29 December 2021.)

- Starship Technologies: Reference #27 is a blog (Zura, Reid (3 April 2023). "Starship Technologies Sets Another World Record with 10 Million Kilometers Driven". Starship Technologies. Retrieved 14 June 2023.)

- Starship Technologies: Reference #43 is a blog/press release published on the company's website ("Starship Technologies Appoints New CEO". Starship. 1 June 2021. Retrieved 29 December 2021.)

2. "Trade publications are at best weak sources because they generally exists to promote an industry."

We do not agree with this statement as trade publications can be in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject, meaning they meet all requirements of a Wikipedia article. Additionally, if a company is private with limited exposure to public media sources, like ours, it is hard to have third-party references that are considered reliable by Wikipedia. We found these trade publications in the reference list of some companies with a published Wikipedia page.

- ATS Automation Tooling Systems: Reference #12 is from Manufacturing Automation, a manufacturing magazine.

- Nuro: References #1, #2, and #28 are from The Verge, an American technology news website. Also, references #10, #12, #16, #19, #20, and #23 are from TechCrunch, an online newspaper focusing on tech startups.

- Starship Technologies: Reference #1 is from TechCrunch, and #33 is from The Verge.

3. "Other sources are routine announcements/coverage so considered trivial."

Could you please point out which sources we listed were routine announcements? The sources we included in our references covered important events and milestones in our company, such as an acquisition (References #6, #11, #12, #13) or an opening of a new location (#9 and #10). These are hardly trivial.

4. "Much of the content is unsourced and this is written in a promotional manner."

Again, as a private company, we do not have a lot of coverage by public newspapers/magazines. We included information from our website in our previous draft but got declined, so we had to remove those sources. We would like to know why other companies were able to list their own blogs and "About Us" page as references, but we couldn't.

We also do not agree that our draft was written in a promotional manner, as we did not use words or terms that were overly promotional or sound like an advertisement. If you could point out which parts in our draft have this issue, we would be happy to edit it.

AliceMaiAnh (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@AliceMaiAnh it does not matter if you, or whoever "we" is, do not agree. Please thoroughly and carefully read WP:NCORP which is the first link in the decline notice and addresses most of your arguments so I will not repeat them here. Please also note sources serve two purposes: verifiability and notability. Primary sources such as press releases, a company's website, etc. can be used within limits for verifiability but do nothing to establish notability which is the bar you must meet for an article to be accepted. As for other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. S0091 (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have thoroughly reviewed all the links you sent and still don't understand why the same type of sources were accepted in other articles and not ours. The "other stuff exists" argument you sent only addresses the deletion discussion, not sources in an existing article. It is confusing what is "within limits" but still establishes notability. I can argue that all the primary sources added in our draft are within limits and we still have secondary, independent sources to cover other topics - but my opinion doesn't matter. That's why I requested your assistance.

You also didn't specify why our draft was written in a promotional manner. I have reviewed the WP Neutral point of view article and I don't think we violated anything listed there. Now I understand I can edit my draft and resubmit it for another reviewer, but I would like to know what mistakes I am making here so my next version can be better. It would be helpful if you could point out which parts in our draft were promotional. Thanks. AliceMaiAnh (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The existence of other articles and sources they use has no bearing on whether another article should exist so using that line of argument is not helpful. The reasons are because policies and guidelines have changed overtime so an article written years ago may not meet today's standards, not all articles have gone through a review process as the review processes did not exist until a few years ago and even so, some articles get by that shouldn't. Also, there's currently 6.7 million Wikipedia articles and only few thousand active editors so the vast majority of updates to existing articles are not monitored so rid yourself of the notion of things being "accepted". Existence does not mean acceptance. If those other articles you mention are sourced mostly or entirely to primary sources or otherwise poor sources then they likely should be deleted.

In order for this draft to be accepted, it needs to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP which as this time the draft does not. Looking at the first five or so sources, the first one is a blog so not reliable, the second and third are are press releases so primary and not independent, the forth and fifth are mostly based on what those affiliated with company say so primary/not independent and the portions that are secondary/independent are not in-depth (a couple or so sentences). Boeing is not an independent source and those are not in-depth. The others are company's website, trade publications (see WP:TRADES in WP:NCORP) or commercial sites offering products and/or services so not reliable. Basing an article on such sources inherently violates WP:NPOV/WP:NOTPROMO not to mention much of the article is unsourced. Statements like "Valiant TMS is a leading provider of...", "The company has decades of experience in..." are promotional. See also WP:SOLUTIONS. It is written like a market brochure rather than an encyclopedia article which should be based on what secondary reliable independent sources say about the company based on their own independent research, analysis, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Does this make any sense to you?

This draft? I have read it and re-read it and I'm still perplexed. Is it me or is it incomprehensible? JSFarman (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What? It's perfectly clear. It's an experiential learning tool used in the development of cultural competence, obviously.

I jest, of course. It's comprehensible, if you've been unfortunate enough to have learned edu-corpo-speak (I'm one of these unfortunates, alas), but that doesn't mean it's particularly meaningful. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh right!! Of course!!! Thank you, asilvering! I gotta stick to obscure rock bands of the 1960s. JSFarman (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@JSFarman I'm glad @asilvering gets it. I was like umm...er...hmmm...maybe...ummm. Googling and getting this didn't help. S0091 (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

So relieved to know it was not just me. Also relieved to know that I can ask you these questions (and that @asilvering may also respond). Re: the link! It's Promise Keepers all over again. JSFarman (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"We proclaim the dignity of the human person and the richness of living sexual integrity, inviting our culture to become fully alive." Uh, wow, ok -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear. Liz appears to disagree with me that it's just a pile of buzzwords stapled together and declined my G11, so it will be stuck in the AfC queue for some time, it seems. -- asilvering (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Now G7'd which means it will likely show back up as a fresh draft, decline/G11 free (I know ABF...but seen it happen tons of times). S0091 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I will look forward to being confused by it again! (I agree, it will show back up at AfC. Or in the mainspace.) JSFarman (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

• In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV

• News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law

• WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)

• Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users

• Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WNS Global Services

Hi i am editing here as good faith, If you think This page does not meet Notability Guidelines, please take it to afd. For now i have removed notability and advert tags. For me it passes WP:NCORP. 2409:40D0:12:C94F:A4:7547:ACCF:1B93 (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources are either press releases, based on what the company says and/or routine coverage which fails WP:SIRS. If sources that meet NCORP exist, please add them and expand the content. Right now it is just a list of activities rather than an encyclopedia article based on what reliable secondary independent sources say. S0091 (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

AFC instructions regarding translation and copying

I understand the reason for your revert at the AFC reviewer instructions—normally I would have done the same thing for a change to instructions and requested consensus first—but this is not subject to consensus (well, the wording is, of course; feel free to change it or discuss it) but the Wikimedia licensing requirements we all agree to with every save trump everything else including policy and consensus. I don't object to changing the wording around as long as the basic requirement is explained. The reason for the new paragraph is that submissions are being accepted by AFC reviewers that are violations of our Terms of Use, and that simply cannot continue. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot we crossed each other. I just posted a note on your talk page. :) S0091 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And even our crossed-each-other messages crossed each other, lol. I'll follow your advice there. Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)