User talk:Clearfrienda
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #5 |
 | Clearfrienda is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 | Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to be civil.
|
The Signpost: 25 April 2024[edit]
- In the media: Censorship and wikiwashing looming over RuWiki, edit wars over San Francisco politics and another wikirace on live TV
- News and notes: A sigh of relief for open access as Italy makes a slight U-turn on their cultural heritage reproduction law
- WikiConference report: WikiConference North America 2023 in Toronto recap
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Newspapers (Not WP:NOTNEWS)
- Recent research: New survey of over 100,000 Wikipedia users
- Traffic report: O.J., cricket and a three body problem
Hi @Clearfrienda, it is very unclear how you came to the conclusion that this article does not meet the publishing standards for Wikipedia, due to the number of credible sources provided, including The New York Times, New York Daily News, and the Associated Press articles. Smaller, but significant, publications also include the Tucson Citizen and the The Oklahoman. There are also multiple in-depth industry focused publications, such as BroadwayWorld and Broadway News that report news on the company regularly. It does not appear that all of the research and credible sources have been taken into account. This article only has sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent. If you do not agree, please identify the specifics. Thank you, CityLimitsJunction (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @CityLimitsJunction: Hi. I declined your draft because the sources you provided don't appear to meet the notability guidelines for companies. It states:
- A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
- Your article, in my opinion, doesn't meet that criteria. "Significant" is generally defined as 3 (see WP:THREE). The majority of your reliable sources, like Variety and the NYT only offer passing mentions of the company ― and are generally talking more about the founder/president than the company itself. This is not in-depth coverage at all. The sources with actual in-depth coverage (i.e. BroadwayWorld) are generally not considered reliable on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#BroadwayWorld).
- My suggestions are either to:
- Find more reliable, independent sources and add them to the article, then resubmit
- Create an article on the founder instead, as they seem to have more coverage than the company
- From what I can see, you should easily be able to improve the draft enough for it to be accepted.
God Committee Article for Review[edit]
Hi there, I left a message on my talk page with more information, but I disagree with your assessment of the Draft:God Committees page.
You note that "this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources", however we do have multiple independent sources, including John Hopkins University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics (they use the term God Panel, but refer to the same thing), and others.
Furthermore, the article is on the requested articles list: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine#Associations.
Let me know if you have any more information on why this was denied or how I could make it better follow the notability guidelines. Thanks! Edcous (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Edcous: Hi. I was very on-the-fence about your article. I noticed the term was used in many reliable sources, but the reason I declined it was because of a lack of in-depth references which are usually a criteria to prove notability (especially in the case of "terms" like your article). I think the subject is definitely notable, considering the wide usage of the term and sources like the AMA Journal of Ethics covering it. I think it could use some more in-depth references, both to prove notability and to ensure all the content can be accurately verified, before it is accepted and moved to mainspace. I recommend adding a few more in-depth references if possible (to prove notability) and resubmitting. I won't personally re-review it to let another reviewer voice their opinion. You could also ask at the AfC help desk to get another reviewer's assesment sooner.
- Let me know if you have any more questions.