|
|
Re: Wikipedia coverage [message #161727 is a reply to message #161724] |
Mon, 01 February 2010 15:14 |
kerryg
Messages: 157 Registered: September 2008
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
remove from buddy list stop ignoring messages by this user
|
|
Short article on phpdeveloper.org
http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/6364
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:
Quote:General notability guideline
Shortcuts:
WP:GNG
WP:SIGCOV
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|