User talk:Jeronemoo

Important notice
GeneralNotability (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

References - what is required
Hi, I've looked at the references you listed as WP:THREE but none meet the criteria for establishing notability. Here's why. Firstly, be aware that there are two types of references (I'm paraphrasing a lot, bear with me). Some references, you can use to establish the facts and details within the article - they don't need to pass WP:NCORP and you are free to use them as you are doing. But anything that is used to establish notability must pass NCORP. There are two sections in WP:NCORP which are difficult to pass. The first is WP:ORGIND and the second is WP:CORPDEPTH. ORGIND says that a reference must include "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. All three of the references you referred in your WP:THREE fail ORGIND. CORPDEPTH says that the reference must provide in-depth information on the company (not on its product, executives, customers, etc). Arguably, some of your references failed this too, but I didn't measure against this once the reference failed to meet ORGIND. So .. the easiest references that meet ORGIND are when a profile is written by an analyst (maybe Gartner/Forrester/etc). Can I ask you if you are aware of any articles of profiles written by these? The next best is something that isn't triggered or relies on a company announcement or where the company didn't provide an interview which is used to base the article on. Hope that helps.  HighKing++ 11:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The nu.nl reference from November 2017 is entirely based on the blog posts at blog.guts.tickets (from Aug 9 2017) and this from hekwerk.nk from October 2017.
 * This from parnool.nl is what most describe as a "puff piece" or "advertorial". It is an advert/profile piece masquerading as news. The information has all been provided by the company as part of a PR exercise.
 * This from thenextweb.com is entirely based on a press release (says it in the first paragraph)
 * Hi . Thank you so so so much for the full breakdown! I'm unaware of any articles written by Gartner or Forrester on GUTS Tickets. Honestly I thought the 3 sources given would definitely pass the guidelines, as they're all reputable newssites. I didn't realise the nu.nl reference was based on blog posts. How did you find that relation? I can't find anything on the website itself that would point toward a correlation. I had seen that the thenextweb.com reference mentioned a press release, but as far as I can tell the article continues on to describe GUTS Tickets in a way unrelated to the mentioned press release. It seemed like an absolute no-brainer that thenextweb article would pass all guidelines. I'm not sure how to find out which ones are not based on announcements when they could be without mentioning so. This makes it very hard for me to pick the right sources. I'm desperate for some help on this. Take this article from decrypt for example. I don't see any mention of press releases, I see the writer talk in her own words about what GUTS Tickets is and what it does, but I do see them using parts of an interview with the founder of GUTS Tickets. Does that mean this one fails the guidelines as well? Other source I would consider with what you told me are this one from theaterkrant that doesn't seem to rely on announcements or released news, or this one and this one from IQ Mag that seem to be triggered by news but do describe GUTS Tickets in a way independent of the news article. Once again, your help and thinking along is highly appreciated. I thought GUTS Tickets would definitely 100% meet the notability guidelines, but this starts making me doubt once more. I can't believe it's this hard to find notable sources, even though there's tens maybe a hundred sources out there. Jeronemoo (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Slept on it and remembered this article from ksoeteman, is that what you're looking for? I was also wondering if youtube videos that go further in-dept on GUTS Tickets would be accepted? Jeronemoo (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, try thinking about articles by asking "is the content of the article based on what the company says about itself, or is the content what third parties have written about it." And even if the content is what the company said about itself, did the third party show that they've independently fact-checked it, or added their own independent opinion? These are the elements we look for. so for example, you've posted a link deom decrypt.co - but it is entirely based on information provided by Jochem Myjer who is connected with the company. It doesn't have to be an official company press release to fail ORGIND's requirement for "Independent Content". You also lean on the idea that certain articles "describe GUTS Tickets in a way independent of the news article" but can you point to any *new* piece of information? Just because they're using slightly different words to say the same thing that has been said by the company previously doesn't make it "Independent Content". Also, sometimes it is difficult to understand how a "cool" company that appear to be doing great things isn't notable and that it is "unfair" just because no journalist has written, off their own bat, an article on the company that it isn't notable - but that is the very definition of notability that we're after. We want to see somebody, off their own bat, write an in-depth article on the company - because that's our definition of notability for corporations.  HighKing++ 11:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, apologies for the late answer. I've thought hard about it, but as far as I know, only this article from ksoeteman fullfills the notability guidelines as you explained them. Krijn is a journalist that reports for a technology website and decided to write about GUTS Tickets by himself on his own personal blog site. Am I correct in assuming this does fit the notability guidelines? I also assume this doesn't fullfill the notability guidelines for the whole article on its own, so I'm afraid the article will be on hold until there are more journalist who wish to write about them. Jeronemoo (talk) 08:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In general, blogs are not regarded as reliable sources. See WP:UGC.  HighKing++ 18:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GUTS Tickets (December 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sionk 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GUTS Tickets and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:GUTS Tickets, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:GUTS_Tickets Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sionk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:GUTS_Tickets reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sionk (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:GUTS Tickets
Hello, Jeronemoo. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GUTS Tickets, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:GUTS Tickets


Hello, Jeronemoo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "GUTS Tickets".

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. If 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)