Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » FUDforum » FUDforum Announcements » Wikipedia coverage
Show: Today's Messages :: Unread Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
| Subscribe to topic | Bookmark topic 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Wikipedia coverage [message #161727 is a reply to message #161724] Mon, 01 February 2010 15:14 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
kerryg is currently offline  kerryg   
Messages: 157
Registered: September 2008
Senior Member
add to buddy list
ignore all messages by this user
Short article on phpdeveloper.org


Clearly we could use more "legit" press.

It's being proposed for deletion because it fails the Notability guideline. Here's the guideline in full:

General notability guideline

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
* "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
* "Sources,"[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[3]
* "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]
* "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5]

I think the complaint that it's mostly referenced on blogs is overturned easily enough since the guideline is clear enough that "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media".

[Updated on: Mon, 01 February 2010 15:18]

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Follow us on Twitter!
Next Topic: PHPWomen Partnership Program
Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Mon Jul 16 20:21:24 EDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00661 seconds