User talk:Bobby Cohn: Difference between revisions

 

Line 121: Line 121:

Thanks again, and looking forward to your response. [[User:Ryan-serpapi|Ryan-serpapi]] ([[User talk:Ryan-serpapi|talk]]) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks again, and looking forward to your response. [[User:Ryan-serpapi|Ryan-serpapi]] ([[User talk:Ryan-serpapi|talk]]) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

== May I Know The Why It Is Rejected ==

So please give why [[User:Tusharavind|Tusharavind]] ([[User talk:Tusharavind|talk]]) 11:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Looking for faster responses or more generic help? You may receive feedback at the Wikipedia:Teahouse in a more timely manner.

SCAM WARNING If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Please report it to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Hello Bobby,

Thank you for reviewing my draft and for the detailed feedback. I understand your concerns about promotional tone and the product-list format. I will work on revising the article into a more concise, neutral history-based draft that only highlights coverage from strong independent sources (e.g. The Next Web, TechRadar, Wall Street Journal, CBS News, VentureBurn), and remove the product catalogue style.
I appreciate the guidance and will reframe the content to better align with WP:NPOV and WP:ORG. If you have any further suggestions on structuring the article so that it better meets notability expectations, I’d be grateful.

Thanks again Vaibhav Delight (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Vaibhav Delight, happy to help. Just to let you know, you should be aware of some of the concerns regarding the citations previously used. I would suggest you review the previous AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProProfs (closely, understand what the problems where with each of the citations) to understand the common shortfalls with organization and corporate referencing. If you still think the article and sourcing is acceptable and would like to proceed, let me know after you’ve done the next draft and I’ll override my previous rejection to allow resubmission. Thanks, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby,

I really appreciate the time you’ve taken to guide me through this process. I’ve read through the AfD discussion as you suggested and reworked the draft into a much simpler, neutral version. I’ve removed the detailed product lists and focused only on history and the independent coverage I could find (The Next Web, VentureBurn, TechRadar, The Wall Street Journal, and CBS News).

I know you’re busy, but if you could kindly take a moment to glance at the new version and let me know whether it’s moving in the right direction, I would be very grateful.

Draft:ProProfs

Thank you once again for your patience and advice.

Warm regards,

Vaibhav Delight Vaibhav Delight (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vaibhav Delight, I saw you removed my rejection and comment, I would have instead submitted it above the previous AFC history. However, I did review the draft. The language is better but unfortunately I don’t believe the citations at this time demonstrate that the corporation has sufficient notability to warrant an article. Sorry, I’m sure this wasn’t the decision you were hoping for. If you have another topic you are interested in writing about, I would encourage you to maybe try another topic, or you can always try your hand at simpler tasks at the Wikipedia:Task Center. All the best, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bobby,

Thank you again for taking the time to review the draft and for pointing out the concerns. I want to clarify that I did not use an AI tool to generate the article, I drafted it myself, based on sources I found. The links you flagged as dead were working when I last checked them, but I now realize that some were unstable or not the best-quality citations. I’ll go back, replace them with reliable archived versions or alternative independent sources, and make sure all references are verifiable.

I understand your position about notability and I respect it. My hope is that with stronger, live sources and a more concise draft, ProProfs may eventually meet the inclusion criteria. In the meantime, I will work on cleaning up the citations carefully. If you’d be open to reviewing a corrected draft once I’ve replaced the dead links, I would be very grateful.

Thank you for your patience and for guiding me through this.

Best regards,

Vaibhav Delight Vaibhav Delight (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Boby, I did provide sources from notable newspaper for this article, I am confused by the rejection. Louis Twentytwo (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Louis Twentytwo, minor nomenclature clarification, a rejection would mean that you are not able to resubmit it and it won’t be reconsidered. It was declined, which does allow for the possibility it can be re-considered in the future. As for why, when we’re assessing whether or not a subject warrants its own article, we weigh multiple factors including WP:Notability. As it said in my declination reasoning, that means we assess whether the sources are: in-depth, not just passing mentions about the subject; reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. In my declination reasoning, I also suggested that some of the content be merged into the already existing article Non-fungible token. You may find that might be an easier path forward for the content in this draft. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bobby Cohn,
Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. I’ve been working with a copywriter to make it less promotional — we removed all product descriptions and focused only on the facts thatTechCrunch, Vogue, Forbes, and others have written about the company. At this point, I’m not sure what else to edit. Since I’m the co-founder and CEO, would it be possible for you to make edits directly to the article? I’m not sure if that’s allowed 62.97.98.71 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi logged out editor, your talk page doesn’t show a history of declined articles. What is this in reference to? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bobby Cohn, sorry for that I am a new here. My user name ElenaV81. ElenaV81 (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ElenaV81, here’s some previous things the community has decided on the sources you’ve given, or my reading of their shortfalls

• TechCrunch, per WP:TECHCRUNCH: “Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, though their articles often have too little independent analysis to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH.“
• The Vogue piece, as best I can tell, is a single line? “AI styling platform Style DNA, founded in 2019, is trying to make this a reality, having developed technology that advises consumers on new purchases based on the colours and shapes that suit them, as well as the items already in their wardrobes.“
• The Forbes piece quotes yourself or the company’s promotional material for a single paragraph.
• The New York Times piece does write about the author’s experience using the product of the company but I don’t see much that can be used to be said about the company. If there is something you think that is substantial from the article, you should quote it and attribute it (more below).
• The Telegraph source has similar problems as the above sources, it’s quoting you directly and there is very little independent analysis of the company, but if there is stuff there that you can cite to, I would suggest you start there …

A lot of the sources suffer from the depth or WP:CHURNALISM-style concerns that arise when sourcing material that was originally published by the company or a person associated with the company, or there is very little significant coverage of the company itself in the article. Instead of saying that the company “has been featured in various media outlets“, write about what those secondary, independant and reliable have said about the company. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for your note! I can add many references I’m just not clear how to that in accordance with your format. Where should I begin? Also, do you need images from me? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheaterSquareMuse. Review the instructional page Help:Referencing for beginners to understand how to add references inline in your text. In regards to your photos, did you take them or did you get them from somewhere else? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re my own personal photos of the subject and the contents of the article. I own the IP I took them. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse that’s perfect. To upload them, you will be releasing them to the commons so you should understand what that entails it will explain as it is uploaded. Follow the Wikipedia:File upload wizard and once the file has been uploaded it can be placed in the draft.

Because you are close to the subject, you will likely need to review our Wikipedia:Conflict of interest behavioral guideline that provides guidance and suggestions when editing on topics that you are close to. Let me know if you have any questions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now how to do the citations, thank you. Do I redraft a new version or edit this pending one? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, edit the existing one and when you think you’ve addressed everything, then click the blue “Resubmit” button to place it back in the queue to be reviewed. Make sure to note our WP:Biographies of living persons policy, our WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view policies as well. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this biography would be the perfect fit for “what women do” by the way. Once it’s cited properly. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, the October 2025 Women in Green Good Article Edit-a-thon looks like it is reviewing articles according to the good article criteria in order to designate them as “good articles” which are a great guide for article quality on the project. I would highly encourage you to aim for writing an article of that quality, but it isn’t a criteria of acceptance at AfC of course .

Happy editing, Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos

Hi! I added photos to my pending article but not sure it worked. Can you confirm? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No changes to Draft:Jules Dhond. Remember to save your work to publish it using the blue “Publish” button. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

photos

can you send me the page where I upload photos again? Also, did you see the citations I added. Those changes went through right? TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, no need to start a new thread for every message. It is still listed above at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. I can see on the commons: you’ve uploaded File:Jules Dhond in her home studio in Orinda, California.png. That is placed in the article by using [[File:Jules Dhond in her home studio in Orinda, California.png|thumb|Juliana Dhond in front of artwork]] which will produce the accompanying thumbnail. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I submitted a second image. Samurai Love by Padraic South. Is that one also uploaded properly? Can you see it? I sent the licensing agreement by email. TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheaterSquareMuse, if you sent the any documentation by email to the Commons:Volunteer Response Team you’ll need to wait to hear from them regarding next steps for that image that you want to upload. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! TheaterSquareMuse (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saeuortklmh (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saeuortklmh, do you have a question? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You found one. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent obvious PROMO/NOTHERE concerns aside which I frankly agree with, the original block was a soft block—no? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that means block evasion is allowed but I have been unwell 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 11:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I think Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brandsome/Archive is a similar thing. At least that’s what I was thinking of when I left my comment. More of a “no need to process the rename request and unblock” notice to whichever admin was going to see it next. Unless I misunderstand—which is also very likely, it’s early here and I’m coming off a short rest after some minor celebratory inebriation. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are proven to be correct. I suspected you were. Thank you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, you are one of todays’ lucky few. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobby,

Thanks for your review of the page I helped revise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SerpApi.

Would you mind clarifying why you believe the tone reads more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia? In my opinion, it maintains a neutral point of view, and matches the tone of similar Wikipedia articles about technical companies. Several neutral, credible third party sources are also cited:

“Meet the Google-Scraping Startup Used by ChatGPT, Cursor and Perplexity”. The Information. Retrieved 2025-10-08.
“ChatGPT’s real-time answers: what powers them”. Tom’s Guide. 2025. Archived from the original on 2025-09-15. Retrieved 30 September 2025.
Goodwin, Danny (26 August 2025). “ChatGPT’s answers came from Google Search after all: Report”. Search Engine Land. Retrieved 30 September 2025.
Can you please review these and let me know if you still believe these do not meet that criteria? And if so, can you please clarify the reasoning?

Thanks again, and looking forward to your response. Ryan-serpapi (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please give why Tusharavind (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]