Draft talk:Vitaminka AD Prilep

Article Rejection Needs Further Clarification

Hello @Tavantius,

Thank you for your review. However, your rejection of this article seems to be quite vague.

The explanation given says "the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject".

Currently, the article has 12 references, 9 of which are certainly secondary and strictly independent of the subject. At least 6 them are also quite in-depth.

On the subject of reliable, could you please provide further clarification as to why official publications, especially those of universities, international banks and/or those of current & former nations are not considered by you as reliable?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your decision, but your decision of rejection does not seem to be clarified in sufficient detail.

I shall await a more detailed response before requesting arbitration.

Thank you. MKDigitalized (talk) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The first, second, and eighth sources are from Vitaminka itself, the fifth and sixth are from EBRD (a partner of Vitaminka), the fourth source is an interview to the company's chairman, I'm not sure about the reliability of the seventh one, the tenth source is from a company called Craft, which according to their about me page, is a platform assisting companies, and the twelveth one is primary. The only sources that, in my opinion, contribute to notability are the Yugoslav Economic Review (source 3) and the report by Irinia Jordanovska (source 9). Tavantius (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean that you are in favour and/or Wikipedia supports the removal of any and all primary sources (those published by companies themselves) when there is no secondary source on specific information? If so, does that mean that in order to maintain neutrality and equitable/fair decision practices, that you are in favour of removing such references from the pages of all other companies, especially those of the same type, such as Frito-Lay, which also uses self-published references in lieu of alternative articles?

In regards to EBRD, do you mean to say that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development may not be a sufficient source because they financially support the company? Is that a Wikipedia rule? If so, which one and if so, whose role is it to remove such references across all of Wikipedia?

In regards to the seventh source, your lack of certainty is not sufficient grounds for rejection of an article. English Wikipedia, to my knowledge, supports non-English sources. Since you have taken it upon yourself to review the article and determine its faith, the onus of language comprehension therefore befalls on you. This is the case with the rest of the non-English sources.

Lastly, on what grounds is the claim made that the twelfth source is primary? The source is an official article from the Government of North Macedonia, which is separate from a privately-owned company operating within that country.

I await your response. Thank you. MKDigitalized (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I was only noting which sources would contribute to notability. However, if there was info in Frito-Lay which was needlessly specific and only sourced to primary sources, then I'd happily propose to remove it. Secondly, yes, as EBRD openly financially supported Vitaminka, I would classify it as a unreliable source due to their conflict of interest. Thirdly, while I approve of that criticism (it would be very bigoted for me to decline a draft solely due to a language barrier), I didn't decline it due to that source. (That source had no corresponding link, meaning I couldn't check its reliability). And finally, yes, in this case, the Government of North Macedonia would be primary, as they are giving awards made by them to Vitaminka. Tavantius (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Frito-Lay page uses the fritolay.com website twice in its reference to company history, currently listed as the 1st and the 13th references. This does not seem to be any different than the information used from Vitaminka's website. I appreciate the value of the comment on the EBRD source and I hope the same standard is held everywhere. In regards to the non-English sources, does that mean that by Wikipedia's rules, a source must have a web-accessible link in order for its reliability to be checked? Is the onus placed on the article writer to provide a free, web-accessible version of the source, and if so, does that mean that Wikipedia does not accept non-free / web-accessible sources? The comments in regards to the Government of North Macedonia I can understand to a degree. MKDigitalized (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

For your statement on the web-accessible links, no, non-web sources are perfectly allowed. As I stated prior, I didn't decline it due to the text source at all. (that statement on the text source was only serving as a part of a review on the sources you noted) Tavantius (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

So, if I removed the parts of the page that include sources:

1. perceived as conflicts of interest (EBRD),

2. perceived as primary sources (Government of North Macedonia / the awards)

then the rest of the article shouldn't have any issues and should go through, despite the language barrier?

What are your thoughts on how existing primary sources should be handled for things such as company history? Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it sounds like Wikipedia's status quo is that existing company pages are allowed to continue enjoying that privilege, while new arrivals are denied that privilege.

Thank you. MKDigitalized (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@MKDigitalized Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB. It is very unlikely that either @Tavantius or I will be the next reviewer. Fresh eyes are always beneficial.

My comment here is because I was reviewing at the exact same time that they were, with a very similar set of reasons. I would also have declined it.

With regard to the apparent status quo, we have a great many poor articles here. This is in great part because of the site's history. Gradually, as standards strengthen, those articles are improving or being weeded out. There are many more poor articles than there are active people here. Please feel free to improve the articles you feel are now substandard. Again, no precedent is set by any article for any other.

I suggest you make the improvements you feel are necessary, and resubmit for review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry Regarding Non-Equitable Decision-making

Hello @Timtrent,

This is an inquiry in regards to your recent comment on the rejection of this page. The comment says "The long list of brands does not help, nor does a scribd reference (deprecated source)"

When comparing to other corporations of the same type, it seems that no issue is raised in regards to listing of the brand names that the corporation operates with (see the competitors listed for several examples). However, here the comment suggests a criticism of the inclusion of these brands, which (unless I'm mistaken) raises a concern of non-equitable / double standard viewpoints. Firstly, why would listing the brands "not help" and secondly, why is that standard not held across the board, if it is even an actual official issue?

Furthermore, I would like to inquire as to why a Scribd reference would not be accepted (is this an official reason) and also, if that is somehow the case, why would an entire article be rejected on the grounds of that one reference?

Looking forward to your response.

Thank you. MKDigitalized (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note that just because one article includes something, doesn't necessarily mean that another should. Also, see Wikipedia's list on commonly-debated sources, which includes Scribd. Tavantius (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius We replied pretty much simultaneously. Each of our replies, including yours above, complements the other's 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@MKDigitalized Taking these one at a time:

• Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We try to do ever better. Lists make things have the look and feel of advertisements, so they are to be avoided.
• No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy
• Please see WP:RSPS and find the entry for scribd
• it was not declined on that basis alone. References must not be PR pieces, and some/many of those you deploy are. Anything that feels like PR is PR. "Announces" is a key work that triggers the alarm. So does. a News section of a web site.

I think I've covered it all. Your sole objective is to write only enough to prove that it passes WP:NCORP, so removing those things which harm that is a good strategy. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Do the four bullet points above constitute a list?

Jokes aside, let's have a look at each of these points:

- On the content of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: this page seems to acknowledge that unoptimized articles exist which is great, but not how to handle opposition when one tries to optimize such articles

- No precedent being considered as being set by existing articles seems somewhat counterproductive. It sets the grounds for double standards and oppression of information. I'm not suggesting that that's what is happening here, I'm only addressing the idea in of itself. If the issue is the lack of working moderator capacity, then does it not make more sense for existing articles to be optimized before allowing new ones to be submitted or reviewed? And if one were to attempt optimizing existing (old) articles by disallowing existing self-published information, would that be seen as "destructive activity" and if so, is that not in direct conflict with the otherwise-stated encouragement to improve these existing articles to fit newer standards?

- Sbribd: Fair enough. The post has an ISBN number, but I can see your point in regards to this. I personally think that denying the Scribd platform seems like a subjective decision by itself (since any non-peer-reviewed source can theoretically be "manipulated" to serve subjective viewpoints, with or without Scribd)

- When you say that "References must not be PR pieces", does that mean that news articles, even those published by a secondary source, are perceived as PR pieces? Where is the line drawn between an independent news article and a PR piece? Without additional criteria, "Anything that feels like PR is PR" seems to allow for more subjective evaluation rather than an objective one. In that case, no news article can ever be used, unless the line is drawn somewhere else and clearly defined. MKDigitalized (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@MKDigitalized Let us take a look at these, again in order:

• The way to handle opposition is to use the talk page to build consensus for a better article, sometimes section by section, and/or to flag it for cleanup. I have dome that today for MLC School. I anticipate argument and will seek consensus if it appears. WP:BRD is a useful guide here.
• The problem that arises with precedent is that it tends to drive the standard downwards, The community's clear choice to avoid precedent is itself a precedent, and doubtless irony was intended when it was set.
• Scribd was a community decision. Such decisions may be overturned by consensus . It is the only way to "run" a place without managers. I assume you understand that our admins are not in any way managers.
• Even the most august media outlet will write articles based loosely or closely on press releases. In my working life I wrote my press releases as articles a journalist could put their byline to. And they did. We, you, I, and other responsible editors, must make a personal judgement call on each. We should be prepared to be challenged, and, if convinced we are wrong, to yield. I base my judgement on many years of creating PR for placement (with some success), which allows me to recognise it a great metaphorical distance away. Clear lines are, regrettably, impossible.

There's something interesting here, and heartening. This close questioning of yours is by no means unwelcome. Justifying actions as a reviewer is essential, even if you remain unconvinced. However, it gives you a crash course in understanding Wikipedia the better. Agree with me or disagree, you become a better editor with each question asked even if not answered.

----

Let me digress a moment.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles.

If we accept an article that is subsequently sent to WP:AFD and deleted there, a problem arises. Perhaps it should not, but it does. Any editor attempting to re-creaate that article must make it substantially different from the deleted article, or it will be summarily deleted without discussion, because that article was previously deleted at AFD.

Thus acceptance of an article that has a less than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process is a death knell for the article in the great majority of cases. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)