User talk:Hracies

This is Hracies's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: UniUni (May 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeraxmoira was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please review WP:SIRS.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:UniUni and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hracies! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am leaving a note on the draft and resubmitting for reconsideration. I hope the information I provided will be sufficient. --Hracies (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Richmond News article is half an interview with the founder, which makes it non independent. Bloomberg article is locked and it looks like a routine coverage of a funding round. WP:TECHCRUNCH is at no consenus for reliabliity. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of going through what's on WP:SIRS and WP:ORG, you jumped to make a comment on the draft in AfC. If you had taken the time to evaluate the sources, you would have known that Business Intelligence BC and Richmond News are owned by the Glacier Media group and both the articles are exactly the same.

I see you're familiar with AfC comments. Have you edited Wikipedia before? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira: is correct in regards to Glacier Media. Nothing wrong with using references owned by the same media conflomerate (e.g., Vox Media), but not if they are the EXACT (or close to) same. So, both of these would only be considered a single source if counting towards notability. TechCrunch is harder as they practice a lot of WP:CHURNALISM. In this case, I would say it is acceptable as it is a staff written piece and not routine coverage of funding (which is 99% of TC). However, that is only two sources unless there is someone who can view Bloomberg (which is also paywalled for me so I cannot). I am not sure if this would likely survive an AfD which is the standard reviewers use to determine whether to approve a draft.

On a separate note, I am also curious about preivously editing Wikipdia. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: UniUni (September 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:UniUni and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]