Talk:Ephemeral (company)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

WP:BOMBARD

Dear @Timtrent,

Many thanks for clarifying @Pichemist's concerns (on Pichemist's "Talk" page).

I can understand why one might think this is a case of WP:BOMBARD. Admittedly, 27 footnotes is a lot, and I can certainly trim some, including these 8:

1. https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/157668-76/

2. https://www.thelist.com/463066/the-truth-about-made-to-fade-tattoos/

3. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2022/02/10876072/ephemeral-tattoo-review

4. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/07/07/business/air-travel-way-up-during-july-fourth-weekend/

5. https://nyunews.com/2016/04/18/nyu-startup-makes-tattoos-ephemeral/

6. https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/making-permanent-tattoos-ephemeral

7. https://www.dazeddigital.com/beauty/article/51940/1/ephemeral-temporary-tattoo-ink-williamsburg-new-york-body-modification

8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVvgWx8ZVl4 (I'm sure you know that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability," per https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)

I believe the remaining citations are substantive and focused on Ephemeral; they don't trigger the criteria for a "notability bomb."

On the contrary, Ephemeral has been the subject of top-tier media outlets:

1. "New York startup aims to leave a mark with ephemeral tattoos" (Agence France-Presse)

2. "'Tattoo for a Year' Startup Inks a $20 Million Funding Round" (Bloomberg)

3. "Why Do You Tattoo? A company has engineered a body ink that disappears in 15 months or less, setting off an existential debate about commitment" (The New York Times)

4. "Afraid of Commitment? Try a Temporary Tattoo" (New York)

5. "Would you get a tattoo that fades in a year? Ephemeral is banking on it" (Fast Company)

It seems to me that these links alone satisfy WP:GNG and WP:CORP.

I just submitted a revised draft, and I look forward to your feedback.

Thank you.

Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueRoses13 I'm going to give you an impression not a review. I have effectively reviewed it once and I don't review twice. Other sets of eyes are always better. In giving you an impression I am not checking the references. I am relying on your work for which you are paid to allow you to make a full judgement. As an amateur I have no interest in assisting you as a professional in getting your invoice paid. Paid editors are tolerated, not welcomed. The job is to know how to do this.

The impression is that it looks more physically balanced, though I cannot really see the point of more than one reference per fact.

You have ignored my final sentence. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Disclosing My COI

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello all, Ephemeral has hired me to create and submit a Wikipedia page on their behalf. I've disclosed this COI on my "Talk" page. As you can see from the footnotes to reliable sources such as the New York Times, Bloomberg, New York, Vogue, and Agence France-Presse, I believe that Ephemeral meets WP:GNG. Equally important: I've kept the tone and content factual so as to avoid any advertising. Thank you for your consideration. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Procedural decline, edit request reviewers are not necessarily AfC reviewers. The draft is currently submitted for review and will be reviewed eventually. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks, @Victor Schmidt mobil. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 12:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)