User talk:Handslocal

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Handslocal, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Luk suh 15:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TDR (journal)[edit]

A tag has been placed on TDR (journal), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of TDR (journal) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Review of Economics and Statistics[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Review of Economics and Statistics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of The Review of Economics and Statistics and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Journal articles[edit]

If the above articles are not meant as advertising for the journals in question please place the holdon tag as instructed and discuss on the articles' talk pages. Reliable 3rd party sources and clarifying the journals' independent notability per wikipedia policies would also be really helpful. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

advice[edit]

As reviewing administrator, I think the journal articles are not in the category of things that cant be speedied this way, and I did not delete them./ They are almost certainly notable, and the articles are not promotional, but they need additional information.

I've been working in large part on improving articles about magazines and journals since I joined WP--I'm now one of the many administrators here--so let me tell you what is actually needed for improving these articles, because improvement is needed, and in more respects than mentioned above. (I was meaning to get around to MIT one of these days) The article should:

Give information about how frequently it is published, the starting date of publication, any previous titles, and the dates of title changes.

If it is available online, say so, and give the date of beginning availability.

List the editor in chief, if there is one. Say what company or institution he comes from. Put a link for his name and the institution name. WP uses these links in evaluating importance of the people. Even if its a red link, use it, so we know we might need an article. If the company or institution is red, check if you have the proper form.

List the major indexes that cover it--just the major ones, and just the relevant ones--for example, Chem Abs indexes every journal that ever has a chemical article, but just the chemical articles, so its only appropriate for chemistry & engineering title. If it's covered by Web of Science or by scopus , say so.

If it should be in Journal citation reports-- give the current impact factor in the form:

The [[2006]] [[impact factor]] is x.xx, which is 4th of 40 in the engineering subject category. the "of 40" part is to clarify if its 4th of 4, or 4th of 40. Give a footnote reference to [[Journal Citation Reports]] (brackets as specified) If you give these for any, you must give them for all journals, even if they are last in the class. But if they are not included, you don't have to say anything.

Give the circulation, if you give it for all magazines of the class. The reference for this can be BPA--if you use it include the word "audited" (and please write an article on BPA so people know what it is) but I normally use Ulrich's, even though the figures are approximate. Link to Ulrich's.

ALWAYS give the ISSN, both print and online.

Use the journal infobox template [1]

and some final practical points from my experience here--don't do more than 2 or 3 at a time. Always write the article fully off-line before you introduce it. Read our Business FAQ.

I'll be glad to help you further as needed. You can ask at my talk page or email me from my user page. DGG (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of CogNet[edit]

The article CogNet has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable online community. I looked for sources, but I could find only WP mirrors and stuff relating to other things with the same name.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reyk _YO! 05:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]