User talk:Athanelar: Difference between revisions

A barnstar for you!

edits like this one produce malformed list markup (as explained at MOS:INDENTGAP), because your first few paragraphs are indented by one colon, then the rest are not.

While you have fixed that specific cause, unfortunately the wider problem persists, for two reasons:

The “Collapse” templates sit outside the lists
You leave gaps between the indented paragraphs

The latter could be easily resolved. The former, not. My advice remains as previously: Put your boilerplate on separate page and link to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 11:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you! Athanelar (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athanelar. I was in the middle of nominating the above article for deletion when you requested speedy deletion. I’m not quite sure what to do now. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think procedure is to wait for the speedy nomination to be declined before raising it at AfD (since if speedy is accepted then a simultaneous AfD would just be a time waste)

Sorry to pre-empt you like that! I was going to AfD it myself but I don’t think there’s any dispute about the article, my BEFORE turned up nothing of use to evidence notability.

I guess just keep your AfD post in the holster in case whoever sees the speedy nom disagrees with me. Athanelar (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the page. It’s at AFD right now, because Twinkle failed to cancel the nomination. I’m not opposed to speedying it per se, but thought it could use a wider discussion given how long it’s been on here. I guess we’ll see what happens. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Well, if anyone wants to weigh in on the AfD in the meantime then I suppose they can. Athanelar (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I’ve withdrawn my AFD nomination. Could you go to the AFD page and indicate whether you still think the article should be deleted? Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Athanelar (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Athanelar, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and in particular for your efforts helping new users at the WP:Teahouse, where your advice is generally very good. In one reply to a user, you suggested six things a new user could do in their early career here to learn how Wikipedia works that are easier than trying to create an article, all good ones imho, but I disagree with the last one mentioned, about reading discussions at WP:AN/I in order to “see how disputes are handled here” (diff). I really, really, would not recommend observing ANI to new editors. For one thing, ANI is *never* about resolving disputes about article content, that is handled elsewhere; ANI is strictly about handling conduct disputes, and often as not, ends up with editors—sometimes brand new editors—being sanctioned, or booted off Wikipedia entirely. It’s a scary page for a newcomer to read, and might put them off of editing Wikipedia at all. ANI is about the last place I would send a new user to to learn about Wikipedia. There are plenty of other places to learn about dispute resolution involving article content, and you could send them there (I wouldn’t; I would focus on the positive for a brand new editor, but that’s at least a defensible choice) but I definitely would not send a new editor to ANI to learn about Wikipedia. Other than that minor point, I think your responses are pretty good, so once again, thanks for helping out at the Teahouse, and keep up the good work! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. My suggestion is based on the fact that observing ANI and seeing how Wikipedia handles problematic editors is pretty much what started my Wikipedia career (after 3 years of my account being largely inactive and only used for a very occasional gnome edit), but I recognise that my own specialised interest in procedural matters is not necessarily something shared by the general public. I’ll amend my template. Athanelar (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Athanelar,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Perry Carpenter for deletion, because it’s a redirect from an article title to a namespace that’s not for articles.

If you don’t want Perry Carpenter to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don’t remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Zzz plant (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, forgot to do that myself. Athanelar (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your ANI thread on soyjak.party, it’s awful work, but i appreciate that you’re the one doing it ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the TA, thanks. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recognition. I was appalled to realise the extent of it when I started looking into that old ANI thread. I’m really hoping we can cut this tumour out effectively. Athanelar (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also like to thank you for your (very eloquent) arguments for the importance of keeping Wikipedia as a human-written encyclopedia that I’ve seen around the recent RfCs. You’ve managed to put my feelings about it into words much better than I could have myself. If I could only find the specific comment that I’m thinking about again, I would keep it in notes (have it engraved on a metal plaque, frame it and hang it on my wall). —Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m really hoping we can cut that tumour out, too. Athanelar (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m really hoping that we can convince people that it is a malignant tumor, that needs to be cut before it has metastasized more than it already has. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it’s also appalling that a lot of the soyjak.party “trolling attempts” are tactics that 4chan developed during GamerGate. there’s nothing new about it! ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s another one: WP:ANI § Transphobic disruptive editor clearly NOTHERE

looking into that old ANI thread

Which thread was that again? —Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The one I was referring to, the first one that tipped me off, was the one about User:Silohpso Athanelar (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, don’t think I had seen that one yet. Personally I think that enwiki needs to be far more strict about WP:NONAZIS, there’s no reason to give the benefit of the doubt in these cases. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and thankfully the people from SP have been so uniquely vitriolic and gross that there thus far hasn’t been any objection to slapping a block on them whenever possible.

My bigger concern is the couple of sleeper agents I’ve seen; there were some indications in previous threads of 10+ year Wikipedia contributors, including one current admin, who may be users of that site. I think on principle we should block them anyway, frankly, but I didn’t pursue it because I know arguing that an editor with a long and entirely productive Wiki-career should be blocked by association is a doomed affair. Athanelar (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve sent you an email. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting that person to the other noticeboard. This is my first day on wikipedia, so I don’t know many of your inner policies. Thank you for your patience!!! ClarityCrusader (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not ‘your’ policies, they’re ‘our’ policies – that includes you now, Wikipedian. 😉

You didn’t do anything wrong, just inefficiently. I would advise you enable the Wikipedia gadget WP:Twinkle, which is great for a variety of things, among them greatly simplifying the process of reporting problem editors. Athanelar (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, please note that if you’re moving content from mainspace to draftspace, for whatever reason, you must also disable any category declarations on the page — either by wrapping them in the {{draft categories}} template, or by placing a leading colon in front of the word “Category” in each category link. Drafts aren’t allowed to be in categories, per WP:DRAFTNOCAT, so if you fail to disable the categories after sandboxing an article, you’re making more cleanup work for other people — so you need to disable the categories yourself when you move the page instead of leaving it for other people to fix. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thank you! Athanelar (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abishe (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the tradition of Polygnotus, an LLM cleanup fox for you. Thank you for the assist with the Udit Narayan article cleanup and the corresponding noticeboard discussion. Really appreciate it!

NicheSports (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Legal practice in Uganda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, —DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 06:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to move your most recent ANI comment about waxdude3 to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Waxdude3_slurs,_NOTHERE ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll leave it where it is, if anything I was considering merging that second thread into the first one to make it one big ‘inquisition’ thread like my previous one; so I’ll leave it to admins/someone uninvolved to decide what should be merged where. Athanelar (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

oh cool! i wasn’t aware that admins could do that. ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ANI isn’t protected, so technically anybody can edit the page and move comments around. Athanelar (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i guess you were, edit conflicted (got my first edit conflict warning on this page! woohoo) ~2025-30597-01 (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Shri Venkateswara (Balaji) Temple has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the “Did you know” section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chilicave — Chilicave (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Athanelar,

Sorry for starting another topic. After my winter holidays I do not see a way to answer to the existing discussion, which has been archived already.

Thank you for your feedback.

I still maintain that Kioomars Musayyebi meets several of the English Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians (while one would suffice, as I understand it).

Please let me once again quote from the English Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)

and add a slightly updated list of corresponding information regarding Kioomars Musayyebi (as I have already done in multiple earlier contributions, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Kioomars_Musayyebi). It would be much appreciated if you could look at it.

6) “…for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses … ”

Musayyebi recently performed as a soloist in a concertino for viola and santur – the places quoted below are not strictly opera houses, however one is one of the leading classical concert venues in Europe (Concertgebouw Amsterdam), the second is the broadcasting hall of a major German public-broadcasting institution (HR).

with Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra:

https://basiaconfuoco.com/tag/kloonars_musayyebi/ (I just added this source to the article, it is the website of the music journalist Basia Jaworski).

with Bridges Kammerorchester:

https://www.hr2.de/programm/klassik-oper/konzertsaal–hoerbar-in-concert—das-bridges-kammerorchester-in-frankfurt,epg-konzertsaal-2140.html

He also appeared with Orchester der Landesregierung Düsseldorf:

https://www.tonhalle.de/veranstaltung/komet/13131-musik-wie-aus-1001-nacht

8) “Has won or been nominated for a major music award …”

With the Nouruz Ensemble, of which he is a key member, he received one of the most renowned awards of the German record industry, the Vierteljahrespreis der Deutschen Schallplattenkritik (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preis_der_deutschen_Schallplattenkritik):

https://www.schallplattenkritik.de/en/quarterly-critics-choice/2023/01

With Transorient Orchestra, he also received the WDR-Jazzpreis:

https://presse.wdr.de/plounge/radio/wdr3/2016/28/20161128_jazzpreis.html

1) “Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable … and independent …”

see for example this radio feature about his collaboration with composer Golfam Khayam on French public service broadcasting (Radio France):

https://www.radiofrance.fr/francemusique/podcasts/journal-de-la-creation/des-nouvelles-du-moyen-orient-5895185

Regarding the website of a German magazine for Iranian culture that I cited before

https://iranjournal.org/kultur/musikalischer-brueckenbauer-musayyebi

it is true that this contains several quotations by the musician himself, but nevertheless it is an article by the music critic Stefan Franzen, therefore a secondary source.

5) “Has released two or more albums on a major record label [or] on one of the more important indie labels …”

Musayyebi appears on several albums, both solo and with ensembles – example:
https://www.discogs.com/release/28134787-Transoriental-Orchestra-Zip-Zip
was released on
https://www.challengerecords.com/catalogue/7/

Thank you for your time and kind regards

Uli Ulrich Eberhardt (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The specific carveouts in notability guidelines like NMUSICIAN allow us to presume that a subject is notable; even if we do so, there still needs to be enough significant coverage about the person themselves to actually substantiate an article; so in-depth secondary coverage (i.e., not interviews, ‘profiles’, or anything otherwise associated with him and his publicity) are needed.

It’s all well and good to list off awards he’s received and shows he’s performed, but if nobody’s ever actually sat down and written anything about him of their own volition completely without his involvement.

Regarding the particular sources you’ve linked;

With the Nouruz Ensemble, of which he is a key member,

It doesn’t matter if he’s a ‘key member,’ awards won by ensembles or bands he is a part of are evidence of the notability of the ensemble, not of him as an individual; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED between items of a parent-child tree; so ensemble members do not inherit notability from their ensemble.

see for example this radio feature about his collaboration…

For the same reason, as I said to you before, coverage of collaborations can never be evidence of individual notability.

If Michael Jackson performed with some no-name off the street, there would have been coverage of that collaboration; that does not mean the random Joe Nobody is now notable, the only reason it would have been reported on is due to Jackson’s notability. You cannot use collaborations with other artists as evidence of notability, period.

it is true that this contains several quotations by the musician himself, but nevertheless it is an article by the music critic Stefan Franzen, therefore a secondary source.

It does not merely contain quotations, it’s based entirely off of them. It’s a grey area, but I’d say it doesn’t do a great job of establishing notability by itself, especially since this really seems to be the strongest example of secondary coverage you can offer.

I concur with Fermiboson’s decline notice from 30 Dec: I see a lot of sources about works and performances of the person, as well as primary sources announcing various things about the person, but no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of the person. and given that your draft has already been declined four times over the past two years, I would strongly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK, find something else to edit for a while, and come back when there’s stronger coverage. There is no rush to create an article on Wikipedia. If the subject isn’t notable yet, as many seem to think, then you need to wait until there is more coverage. If the subject is notable and we’re all wrong, then there is nothing to lose by waiting a while until the evidence is even stronger and you can create an even better article.

I understand that especially as a paid editor this is difficult for you to accept as no doubt if you are unable to publish the article then there is going to be complications with your fee; but that’s precisely why taking payment to get a Wikipedia article published is a bad idea to begin with. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athanelar,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

Ok, I understand that the awards, although they are indeed highly renowned, were for ensembles, and can therefore not be used for Musayyebi as an individual.

To clarify: I have perfectly understood that notability for Wiki cannot be based on simple namedropping. However, my mentioning of the feature on Radio France was not intended solely to point to Musayyebi’s collaboration with Golfam Khayam. It was intended as a reference to his activities as an internationally renowned musician in general.

As I mentioned earlier, I have also added

https://basiaconfuoco.com/tag/kloonars_musayyebi/

which is another reference for his performance as a soloist at one of the leading classical concert venues in Europe (Concertgebouw Amsterdam). Please illuminate me as to why this cannot count?

He also performed at the concert hall of HR (see above):

https://www.hr2.de/programm/klassik-oper/konzertsaal–hoerbar-in-concert—das-bridges-kammerorchester-in-frankfurt,epg-konzertsaal-2140.html

The source is of one of the leading public broadcasters in Germany. Does this qualify as a primary source because the concert took place at the broadcaster’s own venue? I think this would be really a bit exaggerated.

I should be obvious from all of the above and all the other cited material that Musayyebi is a renowned, internationally sought performing and recording artist. I have a strong impression that the underrepresentation of “non-Western” music in Western media gets directly reflected by the fact that, for example, this article is still not published here. (I admit I cannot prove this underrepresentation on Wikipedia statistically, and am open to be proved incorrect)

Regarding the paid editing: As I stated before, I have already invested way more time than could be justified by my fee, so “complications” with it are my least concern, and certainly this is not my only motivation to get the article published. I also want to point out again that it was not “my” draft that got declined several times: I did not write this article.

Thank you and best regards

Uli Ulrich Eberhardt (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the news, the party is fastest growing party and getting enough attention. I request to consider again. Akashsharma000 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That the party may be notable does not necessarily mean its founder is notable. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If there is no significant secondary coverage of him (which there doesn’t seem to be, since all of the major coverage is relating to the Viraj Jan party, not to him as an individual) then he is not notable merely by his association with Viraj Jan.

In any case, you are more than welcome to resubmit the draft to allow another reviewer to look at it. Athanelar (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my language, that came out of the frustration. I trust you and would try to follow the guidelines regarding notability. Thank you Akashsharma000 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to note that unlike IMDB, IBDb is a reliable source compiled and edited by the Broadway League, not a user-generated site. See this, this and this. Also these Wikipedia discussions, among others. this and this — Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Athanelar, regarding Draft:Quess Corp, I did asked my mentor to contribute on this article as there was notability found. I then took a help of Livechat and username Jeske helped me with all the non-notability articles. Hence, it was lowered from 22 to 8 citations. All the details looks fine for me which was checked as well. Can you address what is incorrect? I got a revert from @331dot from Teahouse help to check with you on this. I just want to know what else is missing on this article as notability is established. ~~ 36Flames (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Looking at your sources, they’re essentially all WP:CORPTRIV. See, pretty much every company which does any kind of significant business in the world tends to attract a lot of completely unremarkable coverage of their day to day activities; acquistions, mergers, expansions, constructions of new facilities etc. This is amplified by the company themselves putting out press releases through firms like Businesswire. This kind of ‘corporate trivia’ does nothing to tell us why this company is any more notable than any other. You might say “Look, company X is notable because BusinessRelease dot example reported that they made $500m last year!” but if you change the name and number then the same coverage exists for pretty much any company; telling us Company X made $A or Company Y made $B tells us nothing about notability; because every company makes money. Same goes for acquistions and mergers and the other types of trivial coverage. These are run of the mill activities for every company.

Looking at your sources one by one we can see:

Coverage of an acquisition – WP:CORPTRIV
Lawsuit – WP:CORPTRIV
Forbes – unreliable source as per WP:FORBES, also primarily coverage of the CEO and not the company itself, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED
Same as #1
Rebranding – WP:CORPTRIV
Report on the performance of the IPO – WP:CORPTRIV
Demerger – WP:CORPTRIV
Demerger – WP:CORPTRIV

In my eyes, not a single one of these sources can establish notability. The only one which isn’t CORPTRIV is an unreliable source which only tangentially covers Quess Corp itself. Combined with the 6 prior declines since March last year which offered ample time and feedback to improve the draft, I’m afraid I had to reject this one.

The AfC review instructions tell us to reject a draft if we believe it would be uncontroversially deleted if it were a mainspace article; and given the evidently poor sources, I think it would be. Athanelar (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are all references used in this entry unsuitable because they’re not significant? The entry’s subject has located additional references. We’d like to use articles from Ingram Publishing’s blog, which publishes editorially vetted coverage of authors, as well as Well Read Magazine. The subject has also been interviewed for the Desideratum podcast, one hosted and produced by an Emmy-winning journalist, Theresa Bakken, on more than one occasion.

Is the significance centered in the reports from the articles, or from the publication itself?

Can you help explain what makes the entry’s awards dubious? The WLT Discovery Prize is awarded by the largest writing organization in Texas, a 35-year-old guild with 7,000 author members. Does an award need to rise to the level of a Nebula, for example?

Thanks for your assistance with this entry. I endeavor to bring this article into line with Wikipedia’s BLP standards, now that we’re introduced to one another.

Ronseybold (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What you need, essentially, is ideally a minimum of three sources that meet the standards laid out at WP:42. Since he’s an author, you can also instead find sources which demonstrate he meets one of the special requirements at WP:NAUTHOR but you will still need to find one or two good pieces of WP:SIGCOV to actually give you material to write the article.

Interviews can never be used to establish notability. They’re considered primary sources, which can only be used for the purposes outlined at WP:ABOUTSELF

As for awards, we generally consider an award to be good evidence of notability only if the award itself is notable; i.e., if you could write a Wikipedia article about the award itself. The “largest writing organisation in Texas” I doubt meets this criteria; you really typically need national-level awards for it to count for notability. I could be wrong, here; if you have some secondary coverage to evidence the notability of the WLT award that would be helpful. Athanelar (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello reviewer! I saw your comment of the draft and in one question can I created a the Redmi note 13 and copy the code from the draft ~2026-35750-4 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the List of Redmi products covers the material there well enough already. I can see that there are separate articles for the previous Redmi Note lines, but I really don’t know why. Athanelar (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but can i still create the article ~2026-35750-4 (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it. Athanelar (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Athanelar-

Thanks for taking a look at my draft of the GlossGenius article. It looks like it was denied due to concerns about the sources meeting notability criteria.

I think I can establish notability with the following sources and would like to know what you think:

This article by Courtney Rehfeldt in Athletech gives a good overview of the company’s purpose, and includes several facts like the company’s $70M in funding, the founder’s being a Princeton Grad (as well as having worked for Goldman Sachs), and notes several investors like Bessemer and Imaginary Ventures Athletech article

An article by Yasmin Gagne in Fast Company describes the purpose of the company, and contains facts including the number of businesses using the platform (60,000) and the funding from L Catterton ($28M). Fast Company article

There’s also an in-depth (significant coverage) article in Business Insider written by Bianca Chan as well. This one notes the company has over 100 employees. According to Perennial Sources there is not consensus on Business Insider’s reliability, but it does not say the source is unreliable. Whether this source can count hinges on one’s classification of the source. Business Insider article

All three of these articles appear to go beyond brief announcements of milestones and provide in-depth/significant coverage. They are from reliable sources and are independent of the subject (although for Business Insider I admit there is some debate).

I would like to get your input on whether you think these sources are sufficient to establish notability. Thanks for taking the time to take a second look, I’m relatively new to Wikipedia so I appreciate your advice! JamesH97 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

gives a good overview of the company’s purpose, and includes several facts like the company’s $70M in funding, the founder’s being a Princeton Grad (as well as having worked for Goldman Sachs), and notes several investors

None of this contributes to notability. See WP:CORPTRIV

describes the purpose of the company, and contains facts including the number of businesses using the platform (60,000) and the funding from L Catterton ($28M).

Ditto.

The Business Insider article title literally begins with Check out the pitch deck from GlossGenius, it’s a pitch deck. It’s promotional. Athanelar (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued good work at The Teahouse.

If you put a non-linking character between adjacent links, or after a final link to which your sig will be appended, like I added here, it makes the content more accessible to people with limited vision. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 14:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this, as it’s still an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 19:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, I saw and understood; I’m just forgetful and haven’t quite built the habit yet. Working on it. Athanelar (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Bernie Moreno’s citizenship history is already cited in the Wikipedia. In fact, it was the most previous edit. I was putting it in the info box. Please do better. RakowskiC (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

he deleted cited history of citizenship RakowskiC (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for very specifically helping me understand what is wrong with the Ardsley Curling Club page. Now at least i can work on getting it fixed.

-paul Paul10583 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

would you tell me when permalinks should be used? i’ve had the experience where linking to a diff did not bring me to the right diff but a permalink did. when does a diff change? Logoshimpo (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, diffs never change, so if the link didn’t bring you to the right place it probably wasn’t linked properly.

Permalinks are useful to see a snapshot of a page at a particular time, but when trying to show a particular change made in a particular edit, diffs are the way to go. Athanelar (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to pop by and thank you for closing that RFC. Perhaps now constructive editing can be done to the article without all the edit warring. DragonBrickLayer (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending your time to review the draft for Quiet Mark. I have tried to listen to your feedback and have made some changes. I am cautious to resubmit it as I don’t want to use up too much community time, but thought I’d ask if you’d consider the changes I have made and let me know if you think it’s worthwhile re-submitting, if not, no worries at all and thank you. LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’ve generally followed the letter of my feedback (i.e., you removed the specific examples I pointed out) but not the spirit; there are still examples of the things I highlighted. There’s still promotional language;

the Quiet Mark logo, which helps people to easily find certified products. This serves no encyclopedic function, it’s puffery; it’s the kind of language you’d find in an ad for the product.
Quiet Mark can assist purchasing decisions Again, the same; Wikipedia articles are not supposed to advertise the functions of products.

There’s still a lack of independent significant coverage.

As I said, review WP:NCORP (particularly the section WP:CORPTRIV) and WP:42 and really consider whether your draft meets those requirements.

On promotion, read WP:YESPROMO for examples of things that might not immediately seem ‘promotional,’ but are. Promotion doesn’t just mean saying “this thing is great, buy it!” Athanelar (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry you feel this way. This company sells no products (other than providing the certification). I feel the article could lack encyclopaedic value if no mention of the logo is made, because ultimately that is what people recognise, not to buy a specific companies product, but instead to know that someone else has reviewed the noise/acoustics it makes, so they don’t have to live with excessive noise pollution. Likewise, to not mention the free resource (database) would feel like a doing the same. After the decline I noticed what felt like a strong accusation I had a COI. This is absolutely not the case and I wonder if others are submitting drafts on this, because they may feel it’s notable too. I currently feel somewhat uncomfortable editing this again because of how strongly that was worded. Thank you for your time. LateFatherKarma (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of having a COI, that has already been clarified. It is entirely possible (and common) for inexperienced article writers to inadverently create promotional tone without having a COI. Nor am I saying that mentioning the logo is the issue; it’s wording like which helps people to easily find certified products and can assist purchasing decisions which is the issue.

I apologise if I’ve made you uncomfortable. For what it’s worth if you resubmit your draft I will not be the one who reviews it again; I always leave re-review up to other editors because I recognise that I may be biased in my assessment. Athanelar (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all! I do agree some terminology used was not right and I feel you made that point fairly (I did try and tone it down, including some language you didn’t raise as a concern). Will also think about the other points you have raised. I will step away and maybe give it another go and I definitely respect your views on it, which are appreciated. Happy editing 🙂 LateFatherKarma (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so… I’m a bit sad because it looks like I took on this passion project with 100% enthusiasm and intent without sources certainty. I initially thought my sources were somewhat solid until I slept on the Wiki Golden Rule page then reviewed all my references from scratch… and most were interviews. Those that were actual articles looked similar to the published interviews (I don’t know if this makes sense). Other sources I found were website pages like Martina’s profile on the LunAres Ambassador’s page. Or Martina’s profile on the ICEE Space page on the APICES mission. There are currently 17 references (still looking Golden Sources as alternatives) but it looks like all of them are really unreliable. 8 sources mentioned Martina Dimoska in passing (topic was not about her as a subject but more about things she contributed to). Forbes actually had Martina Dimoska in a publication but upon further reading, the crux of the article is the West Balkans and opportunities: MD was just used as a reference point all through the article. (I don’t even know if that makes it reliable or not). Then Bloomberg Adria… sigh… An interview.

I don’t think I’m going to give up soon but from your expertise and with this information I ramble-dumped on you, where do we go from here with Draft:Martina Dimoska? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Or do you think it’s worth it to keep up the sources search? I’m sorry for the length. 🥹 And thank you for consenting to me dropping a message on your talk page. SpaceTrail (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s unfortunate, but most people simply do not need to have a Wikipedia article about them. After all, we’re an encyclopedia; our primary purpose is not hosting biographies. There are lots and lots of people in the world doing remarkable things, but the people Wikipedia is interested in are ultimately the people who have already been written about in depth. It’s not about what someone is doing, but what others have said about it.

Your passion for this is really admirable, and I honestly would encourage you to direct it elsewhere; if for no other reason than because you could be directing all of this energy into work which is more likely to bear fruit. I suspect if there were good sources to Dimoska’s notability you’d have found them by now. You might like to work on other space-related articles, or WP:WikiProject Women in Red? Athanelar (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights

I’m afraid you misunderstand! I’m not creating these drafts from new, I’m actually moving them to draftspace from mainspace because they were originally created by a (now-blocked) user who was using an AI to translate over 200 articles from Thai Wikipedia without properly verifying the translation, content, source-to-text integrity etc.

If these topics interest you, I really encourage you to look over the drafts, verify that the sources actually align with the text etc and submit them for review via AfC to get them back into mainspace. Athanelar (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll do that. And my apology for misunderstanding, I should have caught that you didn’t create them. I’ll make a slight rewrite to the barnstar copy, but to me the barnstar is still warranted b/c you moved the articles to draft instead of putting them up for deletion. Both of those articles can be improved and, in my opinion, can be made to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

A barnstar for you!

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment