User talk:Mozzcircuit

January 2023

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Airbnb, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf I will add soon. Mozzcircuit (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about AfD

You brought the article Anita Soina up for a 2nd articles for deletion nomination only 4 months after the first AfD discussion resulted in a consensus of keep. It is not appropriate to bring an article up for a new AfD in so short a time after the first one, especially when nothing on the article changed from what existed when the previous AfD reached a consensus. Please refrain from doing this again and also read up on the articles for deletion guidelines and process.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied on that AfD with the similar meaning Mozzcircuit (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to apologize. I missed that comment of yours on the AfD when I closed it as a speedy keep. If I'd had seen that comment I wouldn't have posted this on your talk page. Mistakes happens, please keep up the good work editing Wikipedia.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! Mozzcircuit (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another concern about AfD

Concerning Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiki Pets while I'm not convinced that we should have a stand alone page your nominating assertion that "No reliable sources either on the page or across the web (wp before)." is obviously wrong, there are reliable sources both on and off the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only see trivial coverage on acquisitions. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with whether or not there is reliable coverage? Your claim is a straight lack of reliable sources, not inadequacies with the reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rely on this:

Significant coverage

[edit source]

Shortcuts

The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

Numerical facts

[

edit source

]

Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent.

Significant coverage of the company itself

[

edit source

]

Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).

Examples of trivial coverage

[

edit source

]

Shortcuts

Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement:

simple listings or compilations, such as:
- of telephone numbers, addresses, directions, event times, shopping hours,
- of office locations, branches, franchises, or subsidiaries,
- of employees, officers, directors, owners, or shareholders (see above for #No inherited notability),
- of product or service offerings,
- of product instruction manuals, specifications, or certifications,
- of patents, copyrights, clinical trials, or lawsuits,
- of event schedules or results (such as theater performance schedule, score table of a sporting event, listing of award recipients),
- of statistical data,
standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:
- of changes in share or bond prices,
- of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts,
- of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
- of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance,
- of the participation in industry events, such as trade fairs or panel discussions,
- of the shareholders' meetings or other corporate events,
- of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel,
- of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,
- of a capital transaction, such as raised capital,
brief or passing mentions, such as:
- of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products,
- of sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work,
- in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources,
- as an example of a type of company or product being discussed (e.g. "In response to the protests, various companies, such as Acme Inc, have pledged to address working conditions in their factories")
inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists,
inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs,
coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies (see also #Audience below),
presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel,
other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization.

The examples above are not meant to be exhaustive. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again your claim is a straight lack of reliable sources, not inadequacies with the reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back thank you! I edited my rationale. You are right, I need to be more specific. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another AfD issue

There is an issue with your statement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada as well... You write that "The cooperative must adhere to NCORP" but nothing must adhere to an SNG... Articles may "pass an SNG or the GNG" meaning that an article can still be notable if it fails NCORP but passes GNG. Something like "fails both NCORP and GNG" is much stronger and more accurate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]