User talk:Zond80

Your Files for Upload request: appdb.to logo.png[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! The file has been uploaded. Regards, ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! Have a nice day ahead! Zond80 (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appdb (March 14)[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 Edward-Woodrow was:

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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft needs sources that are reliable and independent of the subject- for example, posts on the app's website or discussions on GitHub do not qualify.

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:Appdb 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.

Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zond80! 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! Edward-Woodrow (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited article according to your recommendations. Please review it. If something else needs to be changed, please let me know. Thank you for your time! Zond80 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appdb (March 14)[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 CNMall41 were:

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.

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 passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Quantity of sourcing is not what is required. It is about the quality. The official website, GitHub, and YouTube are not reliable sources for showing notability.

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:Appdb 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Appdb has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Appdb. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Appdb (March 17)[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 Johannes Maximilian were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:

Unfortunately, I still don't think that your submission can be accepted. Several sources that were used are obviously primary, and the use clearly indicates what in Wikipedia terms is called WP:Original research. The result of that is not what the average individual would traditionally consider and "advert", but it is within the scope of what in Wikipedia AfC terms may be considered an advertisement. In a nutshell, the draft tries to encourage the reader to use the app, and it tries to explain why the app is "good" if you will, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, the article should give a reasonable explanation of what reliable secondary sources have to say about the topic.

A section in which this draft's problem is very obvious is the "Legality" section: The section basically says that using the app is perfectly legal and not a violation of the EULA, and it cites the EULA. Now, the Apple EULA doesn't literally say "Using Appdb is not a violation of the EULA". However, in order to be suitable in this case, it would have to say exactly that. What you have done is comparing the app's functionality against the EULA, and you figured yourself that it shouldn't be a violation. But this is the basic principle of original research, and that is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. The entire draft is original research. Wikipedia, however, is a boring retelling/re-narrating of other sources.

Regarding the cited sources: Virtually all of them aren't suitable for Wikipedia. I will list them and explain why:

appdb.to: Primary source, can only be used for very basic obvious facts, but not for explaining what the App is.
SaaSHub is a software marketplace (i.e., a primary source) and not a reliable secondary source.
WKontakte: A social media platform, anyone can post there, thus not a reliable source.
YouTube: A video platform, anyone can post there, thus not a reliable source.
Apple EULA: A primary source, doesn't explain anything, and thus cannot be used for making explanations.
4pda: An online forum. It describes AppAddict as an alternative to Installous, and how to use it. I know what Installous is and what it did. Obviously the least suitable source cited in this draft.
MWM Protocol: Another primary source that cannot be used to verify what it's cited for. The source reads "Manage your organization’s devices remotely", not "appdb has switched to MDM, which is an app-less approach". In fact, the word "appdb" is not included in the source.
A Cydia repo is also not a reliable source. It is a source for software, not for opinion pieces.
GitHub is a place for application code, it also doesn't provide secondary-source level information.
The Rickpactor usage guide is a blog, and it tries to encourage the use of pirated software (just like 4pda does). Not a reliable source.
IPASpy is a primary source, also a software tool, not a secondary source.

YourLifeUpdated is an Italian-language source, it is not "European Spanish".

I mean, 26/28 references are outright unsuitable. This draft needs serious fixing/rewriting. Considering the difficult source situation, I personally doubt that there are sufficient sources available, but good luck! Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:Appdb 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.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Appdb[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Appdb, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CNMall41 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Zond80. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is contributing to GitHub projects that is related to appdb conflict of interests? Zond80 (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it leads to article creations that end up being speedily deleted as "unambiguous advertising", I guess it is a conflict of interest at least in your case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no way to fix this article? I don't understand what is exactly advertising here, can you please explain?

description of features, overview of legality and history, references to software that is built with APIs?

I have corrected article and removed self-refs as you suggested, added some critical reviews and information.

what is exactly advertising? I don't ask to use this software, register there and pay for anything... Zond80 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]