Checkvist not listed in Wikipedia Outliner entry


Thanks for noticing! Corrected :slight_smile:

Someone kicked you out of there, claiming not notable enough.
I disagree…
Could you please reapply and/or escalate if required?

Aha, I’ve noticed in the comments to the table that entries there should have own Wikipedia page. So, we have to create a Checkvist page there first :slight_smile:

1 Like

This project DEFINITELY deserve a Wikipedia page, as people deserve to know about this project :slight_smile:


Hello friends,

Sorry for bringing this topic back :slight_smile:, but looks like we need your help here.

We have finally dug into Wikipedia – just to realise that we cannot write about ourselves or our own tool. We’ve never thought the rules were so strict.

So if you think Checkvist deserves a wikipage, maybe you could create one? And after that, we could link Checkvist to the mentioned “Outliners” page.

As some input, you can take a look at our about, press, and features pages. Or ask here.

I’m afraid we cannot offer you any incentive for that (again, due to the rules), but we’d be really grateful.

Thanks a lot!

1 Like

I wrote a Wikipedia Article for Checkvist and it waiting for review. I am not sure how long it will take for approval but the process has started. I don’t have though much experience with Wikiipedia so I can’t not just publish.

If someone is able to publish right away I can give you my notes. I used citations from Wired Magazine and PC World among others.

Hello @vidderkidder

Thanks a lot!

It is very kind of you, really appreciate your efforts. Now keeping :crossed_fingers:so the article gets published, I hope this would bring some more visibility to Checkvist.

All the best,

Yes, I hope so too. This is just the start for me in helping to bring visibility. Here is an image of what I wrote. It really did take time learning how to format and submit to Wikipedia. I saw that it could take up to 4 months to approve but could be sooner. In the meantime, I can still edit it until is reviewed. I will check it every now and then in case it needs more editing or new information could be added.

I used the format of other approved existing outliner wiki pages like Workflowy.

1 Like

Thanks! Talking of references, this article may also add some credability, though it is a bit outdated, from the early days :): Checkvist Simplifies Outlines

Not sure what Wikipedia folks think about livehacker :slight_smile:


1 Like

Ironically, I saw another Lifehacker article myself but I can include the one you mentioned. It couldn’t hurt. Lifehacker is a reputable source and it still around just like Checkvist :smiley:

Do you have a birth certificate for Checkvist? Do you know when it was born? :smiley:

The closest thing I’ve seen to that is “10 years ago” :smiley:

Well, the first survived blog post related to Checkvist is dated Jan, 22, 2008: All to productivity: Checklists pop-up and more keyboard shortcuts - Checkvist

But in that time it was not called “Checkvist” yet. The more-less official Checkvist release was done on August, 03, 2008. And it is the same day when the domain has been registered.

So it is a bit more than 10 years :slight_smile:


Wow, I see the article reached the “Draft” stage, cool: Draft:Checkvist - Wikipedia

As a long-time Wikipedia editor and a fan of Checkvist, I feel like I came across this discussion at the right time! I’ve copyedited and expanded the draft article, and I’m pretty comfortable saying that it will almost certainly be accepted once a reviewer gets to it. Looking forward to seeing the article go live!

1 Like

Hello @waldyrious ,

Thanks a lot! It is very kind of you to contribute to adding Checkvist to Wikipedia, really appreciate that :slight_smile:

Keeping fingers crossed on publication :slight_smile:

The Wikipedia Draft Article was declined.

Reason: This submission’s references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published , reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

We can resubmit but I think their requirements are unfair compared to other posts I’ve seen. If anyone has suggestions on what could be done to improve the chances of a success resubmission feel free to chime in.

1 Like

Indeed, it’s a pity.

Some of my former colleagues at bigger companies got rejected the same way - and created non-English Wikipedia pages instead. Maybe we should go the same way.
Czech, Russian, German, Korean or Chinese maybe :slight_smile: