User talk:CNMall41

My references

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

Draft:Pixpa Talks

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Draft:Nase Lino

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)

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)

Draft:uPerform

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)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dewitte

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

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

Beljanski

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

Draft:Grupa Kapitałowa Immobile

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)

I see this was resubmitted after you added the sources. I will allow another reviewer to look at it so there is a new set of eyes and you can get a second opinion regarding notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Imerr (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 12:15:39, 30 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Kcmastrpc

• Kcmastrpc (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Traefik (edit | 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 both a "how-to" and/or non-passing manner -- my understanding is that Examples of substantial coverage, more specifically, An extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product, additionally, book passage [...] focusing on a product is applicable here.

Thank you in advanced for your time and feedback.

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

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "combined" when it comes to ORGCRIT. It specifically says "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability." I see the book sources but they do not appear to be significant in my opinion. At the end of the day, an AfC reviewer needs to determine if a draft would likely survive a deletion discussion after being moved to the main space. My opinion is that this would not. Of course, that is just my opinion. You are free to resubmit if you like as there are other reviewers who may disagree with my assessment. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How could the sheer volume of coverage in published (book) sources not suffice to pass all the criteria laid out in ORGCRIT? Specifically the examples I mentioned re "substantial coverage". Allow me to reiterate, in addition to being included in dozens of published sources, several have dedicated large passages and chapters to the product, and an entire book was authored and published on it! If it were just tech news articles sourced I can see the rationale, as those likely wouldn't survive AfD, but the combination of the two in addition to the sheer volume of published sources seems like it should be enough to show significance. Would you reconsider your opinion and move this into the mainspace? As I pointed out in the Talk page, there are products that are similar to Traefik that have Wiki articles which don't have nearly the number of published sources that I referenced in the Traefik article (if any at all), would those survive AfD? Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You were advised what to do. What case are you trying to make on my talk page? And what result are you looking for?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Your reconsideration in lieu of the evidence I represented on the Traefik Talk page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. You asked for that, and I already responded to that so I am not sure I can assist you any further. Especially with the WP:ASPERSIONS you left elsewhere. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond further, but perhaps you should visit WP:DONTBITE and I honestly don't know what you're referring to, but you may want to consider WP:ACCUSE as well. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably wise not to. I will say that no one on Wikipedia is required to entertain a user who casts aspersions towards editors who disagree with their point of view regarding the notability of a draft. So do not come here and make your own accusation. WP:ANI is that way if you feel I am out of line. You will need to go there with your complaint but do not come back to this talk page as you're no longer welcome.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I am also curious as to why you claimed to the owner of the company logo when you are (or were) just an employee. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. That wasn't my intention. I will fix it as the attribution and permissions can be found on https://github.com/traefik/traefik#credits Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

So unless that person specifically releases it under a creative commons license, it could not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. Only option I see (maybe others can advise differently) would be fair use, but the draft would need to be live in order to do that. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Does Creative Commons 3.0 Attributions license not give us the permission to use it with proper attribution? (see github link) Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

[1] --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok Kcmastrpc (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Starting an article, but am currently left clueless, where do i start?

I have recently started working on an article that I am putting together via cited Sources on Wikipedia general topic-based Pages. The sources, well they are basically focused on computer, and only computer-based science on the study of Tech and Computer Tech Engineering science studies alone. Do you know how I could, by some possibility perhaps, tell me any advice on how I would start the page from introduction to the part of the stuff to end the page in my conclusion while relating it all back to technology. I understand if this will confuse you, as well me possibly thinking nobody has ever quite but at least you for help on writing topics like.

Anything works, and I will be happy to hear any and all possible advice you could

give as well.

-M. R, Ritzert(michaelritzert13@outlook.com

Mike3880 Mik3PromasterC4PR343 (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mik3PromasterC4PR343:, absolutely. I would recommend staring at this link WP:FIRST as it will guide you through everything you need to know. There are also links on that page which will guide you to more sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Request on 22:42:28, 3 April 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Daniel.pandza

• Daniel.pandza (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Interlub Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Interlub Group is an iconic organization from Zapopan, Mexico that should be featured on Wikipedia.

The company and/or it´s subsidiaries interlub s.a. de c.v. and interglass sa. de cv. have received three national awards by the president of Mexico:

• (Premio Nacional de Exportación,
• Premio Nacional de Calidad
• and Premio Nacional de Tecnología e Innovación.

Interlub Group´s CEO, Rene Freudenberg, was even asked to talk at the ceremony of the National Quality Award delivery ceremony in 2018 where Mexico´s former President, Enrique Peña Nieto was present.

In the history of these awards, only 3 other organizations have received all these distinctions.

Moreover, the company forms part of the Best Mexican Companies since 2015 (Las Mejores Empresas Mexicanas), a distinction granted by Citibanamex, Deloitte and Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Also two of the most important academic institutions in Mexico have featured case studies, highlighting the company´s unique business model, organiztional structure and response to the 2020 global pandemic.

Interlub Group´s leadership team feature in a series of articles in Mexico Business News as well as speakers at local TEDx events (TEDxZapopan), Coparmex events.

I have added many third party sources to the article.

Also, Interlub Group and it´s subsidiaries serve customers in niche markets (highly specialized lubricants) in over 40 countries. Therefore, there is not too much information available on the web.

I am happy to edit the parts of the content that sound too commercial and remove the links to Interlub or interglass website.

Daniel.pandza (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)