User talk:GeoDin Editor

This is GeoDin Editor's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Your submission at Articles for creation: GeoDin (March 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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 isn't ready at this point, there are too many "citations needed". To get notability under either the company or the software will require independent reliable sources. See for example WP:SIRS.

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 it after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GeoDin 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.

ChrysGalley (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrysGalley,

Thanks a lot for taking a look at the draft I submitted and pointing out the improvements it needs. I submitted the draft with the many "citation needed tags" as when I was reading the Wikipedia guidelines I understood that it's better to signal to editors/contributors that a source is needed to show transparency. But I agree with your feedback, there's too many tags of such.

If I remove them and some of the content that would really need a citation, do you think I would get my draft approved? I know that we have a German GeoDin Wikipedia page which only has 2 references (one of them not even available anymore) and it is published (I have no clue how as I am not the author of that page) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoDin.

As well, you mention that to get notability under either the company/software category I would require independent reliable sources. I see that the German version is under the category "Geoscientific software" would that category entail less independent reliable sources? It's not that I don't want to use them but we simply don't have them..

I really appreciate your guidance in this! GeoDin Editor (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GeoDin Editor - yes there is a very big difference between German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia on this and the related issue of company notability. Each language is largely independent of each other, and the German version has both a different approach to companies / software and a different underlying notability provision which applies across all articles. Consequently many companies only have an entry in the German version and not in the English version. The strangest examples are British companies which do very little business in Germany having only a German entry and no chance of an entry on English Wikipedia.

Separate to that there is also a tension on whether to write about software, which is covered by WP:NPRODUCT or the company, which is WP:SIRS. The notability requirements overlap there, so it is all about requiring multiple independent reliable sources and it's up to the sources whether they talk about just the software, which is usually the case, or whether they talk about the software house.

This is a long way of saying that it's quite tough to get an entry on English wikipedia unless you have been featured in Manager Magazin and Börsen-Zeitung, and even then the content can't be on routine things like funding and director changes. For software then you really need two sources which are obviously independent, and giving significant coverage reviews. So, it is not easy.

One thing that is OK though, is to remove material for being unsourced. So long as there is enough context to understand the product, shorter well sourced articles are much easier than more detailed but unsourced drafts.

I am trying to give an objective survey here, so you can make an informed decision how to spend your time. I can't subjectively say "this is worth doing / not worth doing". ChrysGalley (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrysGalley Thank you so much for your elaborate reply. It makes sense now. Ok, I will work on the copy with this in mind and try for another submission soon. I really appreciate your input! GeoDin Editor (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of Draft Article

Hi @ChrysGalley,

I took your feedback and came back with a stripped version of the information which is verified by some independent sources. Would you be kind enough to review this new draft? Thanks a lot! GeoDin Editor (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoDin Editor I make it a general rule to let a second reviewer look at the next updated drafts, so that you get an independent perspective, rather being lumped with just one person's view of the world. So just submit and one of my colleagues will take a look. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrysGalley

Thanks a lot for quick reply, I understand! I have re-submitted it some time ago, it is pending review :D There was an attempt from another Wikipedia editor to review it, 36 days ago, but I am not sure they finished their assessment. GeoDin Editor (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using AI here. NDG (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NDG,

You're right, thanks for flagging this. I used AI on the original copy that was written by the Product Owner in order to meet the Wikipedia guidelines of notability. The text was completely written by a human, I just used AI to help me integrate the references that I have found and strip down the content to a version that would make it easier to get it approved. Going forward, I won't use AI to generate or rewrite the content of the article. GeoDin Editor (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeoDin Editor! 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! ChrysGalley (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]