Open main menu

Review Sandbox for Gradeup pageEdit

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus! I have created the new page for Gradeup on User:RajkGuj/sandbox and would really appreciate if you can take a look at it. I am reaching out to you because you had deleted it the last time. RajkGuj (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How good is The Statesman? It's the only source that wasn't already there in the old version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many more sources that talk about the brand in detail and all of these sources including ‘’The Statesman’’ are independent and reliable news links. RajkGuj (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Except that many of these sources were already assessed in the previous deletion discussion and judged inadequate. Let's see what @Atsme, Mark the train, CNMall41, and Robert McClenon: have to say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I thought about the educational aspects of the app but the parent company GradeStack Learning Pvt. Ltd. is a for-profit. All we've seen so far are press releases and trivial coverage of the app (inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists). I tried to find more sources that will pass WP:GNG but no luck. Maybe in the near future. Atsme Talk 📧 19:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I concur with Atsme. There are many companies in the business of online learning/coaching using PR for exposure. I'd wait for more RS with detailed coverage. MT TrainTalk 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any conflict of interest? It reads to me like a draft submitted for hire. If it isn't, then it just reflects a lack of notability. Also, is there a reason why it hasn't been moved to Draft:Gradeup? Salting, perhaps? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I have answered my question. The editor is a paid editor and has not made the disclosure with regard to this draft. I am moving it to draft space to associate the history with the title. Other reviewers can then deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - The Statesman is a reliable source, but that only means that the number of customers that was reported is reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Jo-Jo Eumerus - The current draft has more references than there were last time. These include the ones in The Times of India, The Indian Express, Business World, and The Statesman. All these are reliable sources in India. There are LOTS of passing mentions in other publications and there's also in-depth coverage. That is how information about most brands in India is covered.
User:Atsme - Some of the other companies in the same domain do exist on Wikipedia with equivalent or rather weaker coverage in the media. For example, Doubtnut, Vedantu, Etoosindia, Transweb, etc. In fact, Doubtnut is even newer than Gradeup in terms of the number of years since it has been established.
User:Robert McClenon - There's no conflict of interest here. I understand paid disclosure on Wikipedia and have done the same when it was required. I like to contribute to Wikipedia in the space of Indian startups. I have worked on the Wikipedia pages of such organizations in the past and will soon be working on more since they have in a short span of time been able to establish themselves and help the population. It was not moved to Draft:Gradeup because I am still in the process of learning the guidelines and methodologies of Wikipedia and like to be guided wherever confused. RajkGuj (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@RajkGuj: Um, no. Many of the sources in the draft were already in the article that was deleted. That is, they were judged by the participants of the deletion discussion to be inadequate. Of the new ones, they don't seem to be too different from the ones that were there before so I can't really tell whether any of them would change the assessment. The comments here are not positive either. I think you'll need to ask at WP:DRV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for your suggestion of going through WP:DRV. RajkGuj (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the side effects of sometimes being a paid editor is that when you say that you are not editing for pay, but you have done it in the past and you write something that reads as if it is paid editing, no one will believe that you are not being paid. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
There is more concern here than just notability. The fact anyone would move their draft live after it was declined through AfC is skirting the AfC process. Why even go through AfC if you plan to move it anyway? Ignoring that, and the COI concerns for a moment, I just did another search for notability. This was more than just looking at the references in the draft as I went through several sources (Google Search, News, Books, Newspapers.com, etc.). Company references need to do more than just talk in-depth about a company. This is something often overlooked by those opining on company articles in Wikipedia. The relevant guideline is at WP:ORGCRIT. Using that, the references I found do not add up to notability. For instance, this reference in The Statesman (which I would consider a reliable source) is in-depth but not significant. It is simply a regurgitation of what is on the company website with no independent thought by the writer. Remember that "quantity does not determine significance" so despite that article focusing on the subject, it isn't significant IMHO. There are also many references such as this which are trivial coverage. Just because the company name is in the title of the article does not mean it isn't trivial. This one and many like it are trivial as they are "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage." Company articles are my main focus in Wikipedia at the moment and based on my experience working with them, this company does not meet guidelines for notability. With all the references available, I cannot see the current draft or even a revised draft surviving AfD in a second deletion discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you are saying CNMall41 but my concern here is that most editors and administrators on Wikipedia don't understand the nature of the news industry in India. Here, publications and journalists mostly talk about companies when there is an announcement, an interesting story, a product launch, or something that is worth noticing for the target audience. They print press releases received from the company or write about recent updates. Efforts by the media to actually step out and do an independent coverage about the company are rare. As a result, companies have to initiate different activities to remain in the eyes of the target consumers and the media to get routine coverage. It is for this same reason that notable and credible companies like BookMyShow and UrbanClap, leaders in their category are not on Wikipedia yet. I feel what makes a company notable now is the number of consumers it has, its size, its value, and the number of years it has remained active for. I put the content on my Sandbox and requested a review here on the talk page. I did not make the draft live, it was done by another editor. RajkGuj (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like the same for US media. Although rare (based on the number of articles versus ones that qualify for notability), it is done then. There has been discussion about your other contention - size of company, its value, number of years active, etc. - prior to a recent update of notability guidelines for companies. These were all rejected as criteria for notability. Until that changes, I have to opine based on the current guideline and don't see how this one would survive if it went to another AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What I'm wondering with increasing concern is how the following start-ups: Doubtnut, Vedantu, Etoosindia, Transweb got past NPP, were it not for the educational aspect of the product. None of them meet notability requirements per WP:CORP or WP:GNG and they are neither educational non-profits nor recognized as educational institutions. They are start-ups using WP to promote their products. In fact, the editor who created/was primary author for the article Doubtnut requested a self-block, asked for the block to be removed long enough for him to create the article, and then went back on the self-requested block. Does that not give the appearance of paid editing? Jo-Jo, if all of those articles were tagged G-11, they will probably be declined by an admin who isn't aware of this discussion because the educational aspect makes them appear legit when they're not. If prodded, the paid editing team and its socks will likely remove the prod. Going to AfD could result in no consensus, and will be a major time sink. Your thoughts? Atsme Talk 📧 10:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I do have much experience with spotting undisclosed paid editors, and none of these articles are eligible for G11 IMO. So you'd have to go to AFD if you think they should go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

CraterEdit

Well! That's a mess of misunderstanding there. PD-Art or PD-Scan on a US Federal Government scanned work restored in Britain? No. That's just a fundamental failure to engage with the actual copyright rules - US federal government works not getting copyrights anyway - but Britain's low threshhold of originality meaning my restorations are in copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 11:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:Well, the problem is that we need to define whether a copyright arises in the process of converting the original work into the file now used in the article, and the mere process of scanning it does not (hence PD-Art and PD-Scan would apply here). In this case there was an additional component - your restoration work - that could create a third copyright. But "Restoration work" can mean different things. Some of these things may not create a new copyright. Others will. The reason why I summoned you is because I could not readily tell which category yours fell under. Also, while somewhat impolite from an ethical perspective enWikipedia only cares whether an image is copyrighted in the United States of America. I realize I was a little disarticulate there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's... Not right for Commons, which is where the tag would change. Commons definitely does care about local copyrights.
PD-Art/Scan only apply if an attempt to claim copyright is possible. Otherwise, we're stating that works like the original image, which are definitely free to use worldwide, might not be if PD-Art doesn't fit your local laws. It's adding restrictions that don't exist. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, the problem was that three copyrights can apply to that file File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Noctua, Corvus, Crater, Sextans Uraniæ, Hydra, Felis, Lupus, Centaurus, Antlia Pneumatica, Argo Navis, and Pyxis Nautica.jpg:
  • The copyright of the original drawing; since it was done in 1825 it has lapsed and that's so noted in the license.
  • The copyright of the scanning that was required to convert it into a digital image. The file page said nothing about whether that would apply; either a PD-Scan tag or some other kind of PD tag was needed and that's why I did suggest the PD-Scan tag.
  • The copyright of the restoration work.
My question about PD-Art/PD-Scan was for the Potential Copyright #2; Potential Copyright #1 was already addressed by the file page and Potential Copyright #3 is what you were pinged about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

...except the scan is by the Library of Congress an entity incapable of gaining copyright in the first place. PD-Art/Scan is misleading, as they state considering it such is an official policy, not a worldwide release by the US government. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 16:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good argument, actually. I'll remember that for the next time where more than one license statement can be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Glad I could help! I just believe in maximising reuse of images, which means getting this sort of thing right, lest people get put off. Honestly, the main reason my statement about the restortion links, but does not use Template:Attribution is because the word "request" is literal. I'd ask you do it. If you don't, I don't care, but if people need a specific formula, there you go. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs 01:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macdonald seamountEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macdonald seamount you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adityavagarwal -- Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-16Edit

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Image questionEdit

Hey, do you think the images here are considered free use? I would think the answer is no, but I figured I might as well ask. ceranthor 18:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless {{PD-US-no notice}} applies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Got it. thanks! ceranthor 17:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Jo-Jo Eumerus".