Petit minion

Your submission at Articles for creation: Funkwhale (November 3)

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

KylieTastic (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @KylieTastic, Thanks for your review :)

You say the article lake reliable source. What information is not reliable ?

Please take into account we are speaking about a software and most of the article content can be verified reading the source code of the software and the code of conduct.

Also note that this page already exist in four other languages : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q58070309#sitelinks-wikipedia Petit minion (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Petit minion. Wikipedias in other languages have different guidelines and policies. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 20:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Asparagusus :) I understand there is other policies in other languages but what about my other points ? (eg most of what the software does can be verified in the source code, interaction with other softwares and history of the software is sourced with third party articles). On top of that I added some references (in external links), there is now at least 8 thirdparty references, all acknowledging the same facts. So could you be more specific please ? What information is controversial ?

Thanks o/ Petit minion (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The sources need to show that the subject is notable. Please see the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations/products. Also, the text you've written seems like an advertisement. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 21:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If I understand correctly Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to be notable an organization has to attract the attention of reliable sources. There is various reliable source speaking of funkwhale has you can see in the reference list (metabrainz, librealire, gnulinux, some scientific articles, etc). So could you elaborate why Funkwhale is not notable ? What is the lacking notability requirement ?

Plz could you elaborate on what part of the text looks like an advertisement ? I would gladly update it so its more neutral. Funkwhale is not a company, we are a non-profit and don't do advertisement. I created this article because there is various reference of funkwhale in wikipedia and I noticed there wasn't any page for it (when there is for the similar federated software like Pixelfed Friendica Mobilizon etc) Petit minion (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asparagusus any new on this ? Petit minion (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Petit minion. Sorry about the wait! I didn't see your original reply and I was celebrating Thanksgiving with my family over the last week. I think that the subject could be notable, but first you need to remove most of the references to primary sources. The blogs and information pages may have information about the subject, but they do not establish notability. I believe your draft sounds like an advertisement because of the way it lists features. If you want, I could edit your draft to make it sound more neutral. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asparagusus thanks for your response and review :) Hope yo had a beautiful week with your familly :)

I think primary source are useful because we are speaking about a software and these allow to verify various information of the article. But if you have some primary link that is useless we can speak about it. And I don't think that because there is a various of primary source it means the subject is not notable since there is also various secondary sources.

About the advertisement : I understand what you mean. I update the article to avoid make you work on this but feel free to edit the draft at your convenience. I would just be grateful if you do not delete references because it took me time to find them and to build the history of the software. Petit minion (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Petit minion! Thank you so much! Primary sources are good when confirming facts about the subject, but should not be used exclusively so the subject can be established as notable. I think that your draft is very close to being in a place where a reviewer would accept it. You've done great work on it! I'm a bit busy right now, but as soon as I get the time (probably tomorrow), I'll see what I can do. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 03:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Asparagusus hello :) Any new on this ? Petit minion (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Petit minion. I am so sorry I forgot about this. I haven’t been very active on Wikipedia over the past two months. I’ll definitely check it out in the next week. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

hello @Asparagusus , I see you changed the article, thanks for the work :) Petit minion (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Funkwhale (November 4)

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

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 20:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Funkwhale (December 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Funkwhale 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.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

hello @Significa liberdade (she/her) :)

can you elaborate why prior comment still applies ? Has you can see in the last request, we add discussion with @Asparagus ending in article modifications. So I would be glad to know what is the issue now so I can resolve it. Petit minion (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade up ? out of 15 references 9 are secondary sources... So I don't understand how your comment "most of the source are primary" is true... in fact most of the sources are secondary... Petit minion (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Petit minion: At the time I reviewed the article, over half of the references were primary. The sources have changed a bit since then. At this time, I can provide the following source review:

1. GitLab counts as a primary source.
2. Online Social Networks and Media is a secondary source, but it doesn't provide significant coverage.
3. Seven Theses doesn't provide significant coverage.
4. From Feminist Servers to Feminist Federation doesn't mention Funkwhale.
5. Le Fediverse comme système de médias sociaux alternatifs doesn't provide significant coverage.
6. Fuknwhale is a primary source.
7. Angel Garcia Menendez does not provide significant coverage.
8. Funkwhale, an Open Source GrooveShark Alternative, Begins ActivityPub Implementation was published on Medium, which is not considered a reliable source.
9. GitLab counts as a primary source.
10. Funkwhale, les défis d’une version libre et fédérée de Grooveshark may be a good source to establish notability.
11. Funkwhale 0.17 is out! is a primary source.
12. 2022 February and March update is a primary source
13. retribute.me on GitLab counts as a primary source.
14. NLnet counts as a primary source since they fund Funkwhale.
15. Funkwhale, The FOSS That Won’t Flush is a blog and doesn't count as a reliable source.

I hope this helps! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

okey thanks for the detailed explanation ! :)

Why nlnet count has primary source ? It's an independent institution from Funkwhale. They fund a lot of project that follow their funds politics. They are backed up by the European union. It's a reliable source to prove that funkwhale follow open source exigences and alternative experimentation of social networks. Petit minion (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Irrigation reservoir

Hello, Petit minion. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Irrigation reservoir".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Funkwhale

Hello, Petit minion. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Funkwhale".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)