User talk:Stevienetto

This is Stevienetto'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: Trainocate Holdings (April 2)[edit]

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

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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Trainocate Holdings 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.

GSS ^💬 05:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trainocate Holdings (April 4)[edit]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Very far from approval. You have declared your WP:COI, but please read the guidelines, for example "COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted."

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:Trainocate Holdings 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.

Greenman (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stevienetto! 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! Greenman (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trainocate Holdings (April 29)[edit]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please do not resubmit without significant improvement.

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:Trainocate Holdings 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.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI[edit]

Stevienetto, I noticed you've disclosed your conflict of interest on your user page. Can you clarify your involvement in creating Draft:Trainocate Holdings? Specifically, who hired you and how did this come about? Additionally, please refrain from resubmitting the draft for review until you've included additional reliable sources to establish its notability. GSS ^💬 05:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've disclosed said COI as I'm an employer of the company. Just wish to note how unproductive this nitpicking has been. Firstly, I firmly believe the words used describe the company as a whole, and they are all factual instead of advertorial. There are literally tons of big names/organisations out there with similar tone/language on their published articles. In fact, there are even many that sounds way too promotional and boastful to even be out?

Secondly, I've been in discussion with an editor over the past 24 hours trying to sort out the issue of adding more reliable sources and just earlier the person said everything seems to be in order. At this point, I honestly don't know what else is there to add on to prove? Everything is publicly available on our website and socials, but they're not deemed "independent" and "reliable". Is it expected that every single info has to be reported by the press or be talked about in some case studies?

Thirdly, wouldn't it be more helpful for experienced editors to actually provide direct feedback and suggestions rather than just stating something in general because it seems so difficult for us, contributors, to fulfill every single requirement here - especially when different editor/reviewer has their own interpretations and styles. What's stopping you for approving this and the next person from declining despite me going over and over again on the very same point. And let's not forget the inconsistency on reasonings - one minute it would be regarding COI, then the next one would be about sources (despite edits already been made). Stevienetto (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. To improve the quality of the sources in your draft, it's essential to cite references that offer detailed coverage of 'Trainocate Holdings' as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Currently, many of the sources lack substantial information about the company, with some being limited to interviews or passing mentions, and a few not meeting the reliability standards of WP:RS. I recommend familiarizing yourself with the policies and seeking out sources that provide comprehensive insights into the subject matter. Avoid relying on sources that merely mention the company's name, offer routine coverage, or consist of interviews. Please refrain from resubmitting the draft until you have integrated in-depth sources that meet these criteria. Also, please see WP:3RR. Thank you, GSS ^💬 07:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're aware that most of an organisation's information comes directly from the organisation itself - official statements by management, latest announcements via press releases, postings on socials, website or app content, etc. - after which they would be cascaded into news publications and/or shared across public portals.

Because I really don't get the logic behind having to integrate any more "in-depth sources" that what have already been presented. Every piece of information is verified and accurate. It's written in a clear, objective tone as well. It would be even more apparent hearing/seeing it from the company itself but since that is not considered "independent" and "reliable", please by all means point me to what is then.

How can one improve on the "quality" and "notability" of information if we are not permitted to access any information from the main object/subject itself. If you look at Udemy, so many sources come directly from their website, not the mention the news reports cited also feature interviews and passing mentions. What's with the double standards? Stevienetto (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]