Archives

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Hey is it possible to remove the references that are not necessary and resubmit for creation? I did put links that I believe were unnecessary. Rrr884 (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you did this prior to my response. Just note that it is not about removing references. You will need to remove unreliable references but also ensure that you include references that show how this subject is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I really want this page by the end of the year. Would a reference from sites like Hype magazine, allhiphop, hiphopsince1987, kazi magazine, medium, be considered as reliable sources? Rrr884 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the subject of the draft? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i am Rrr884 (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks Rrr884 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Thanks for the review , Could you help me point out the sources that are not reliable ? Also I'm sharing a few more references with you.

thenextweb.com

w3techs.com

softwareadvice.com

I have cross checked all sources to know whether they are acceptable or not. Articles listed under Cloud platforms (Webflow, Squarespace) have citations from the above.

4eyedpeas (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is only one prong. Please review WP:ORGCRIT as stated. This will guide you through what is needed. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through WP:ORGCRIT & Wikipedia:Notability . as per the guidelines I have removed 2 references from Hubspot & Digital Trends (These have no independent mention on the subject, also removed the text that cited.

Also added reference to support notability from NextWeb All other cited sources are independent to article subject & reliable secondary sources that is accepted by Wiki.

please let me know if the draft is okay to resubmit. Thanks 4eyedpeas (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell you to resubmit or not. That is up to you. I can tell you that based on what I currently see in the draft I would not approve it. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you let me know which of the sources are irrelevant out of the 4 references added? are they all not relevant?. Also can I go with reliable review sources WP:PRODUCTREV for citations ? Thanks 4eyedpeas (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they talk about the company, then all will likely be considered relevant to the topic. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe you are wasting your time as the topic is not notable in my opinion. I did a quick search for references meeting WP:ORGCRIT and found none. At this point, I wouldn't be able to assist as I am not sure how to help. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @CNMall41,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to share with you that I have made some improvements to the "Draft:Nase Lino" draft and would like to request your kind review before proceeding with its resubmission.

In the previous version of the draft, it was noted that there were insufficient sources of information, so I took the time to conduct thorough research and collect a series of files that I consider reliable.

For this reason, I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the updated draft and provide me with your valuable feedback on it.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Redactando0.3 (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to resubmit if you feel it is ready. There are more reviewers than just me. I will recommend reviewing [{WP:REFBOMB]] however. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to provide any additional feedback on why the draft for uPerform is getting rejected? It mentions sources, but the sources are in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent of the subject, so not sure why those are getting flagged - at least in general. Was it a particular source that caused this?

I believe notability was brought up in a previous draft too, but this seems very vaguely defined and uPerform's direct competitors have Wiki articles (most notably, Whatfix). It serves a pretty niche area of focus (EHR education), but it is a very relevant player in that.

Just trying to get this published, so any feedback is appreciated! Redfinch8 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Redfinch8:, I replied on the talk page of the draft since you started a convo there. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to sign your comment. CT55555(talk) 06:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to forget a lot of things these days. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good job getting Mirko Beljanski cleaned up. Now, can you do the same on the French wiki version? Jimminiesong (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity with the language. Very little and what I do know is NSFW. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page watched comment): I am reasonably active on French Wikipedia, and can give this a shot. I will add it to my list of things to do. BD2412 T 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. If you have access, this proved to be a very good source. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. I was unaware of the bookfinder resource. I have access to the book via the Internet Archive. BD2412 T 23:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @CNMall41, Thanks for the review. I've added new sources that in my view are reliable. If you are able to provide any feedback, that would be great.Imerr (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kcmastrpc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Traefik ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Greetings CNMall41. I noticed you failed the AfC due to not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I have a few questions and I'd very much like to hear your feedback:

• Did you see Draft_talk:Traefik where I covered sources that combined should demonstrate all the criteria outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? While the other sources cited (tech blogs, tech reviews) are often considered unreliable, the specific posts I chose do not appear to be sponsored and are written by subject-matter experts. Typically sponsored posts are labeled as such and while the article did use those at some time, I've since removed them. Is there anything specific about the sources that I used that you feel we should take to WP:RS/N for discussion?
• Do the secondary sources such as Traefik API Gateway for Microservices not meet the bar for notability? Similarly for the other books that include Traefik in a "how-to" manner -- my understanding is that Examples of substantial coverage, specifically, An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product is applicable here.

Thank you in advanced for your time and feedback.

Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]