User talk:Abhikerl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Conflict of interest policy[edit]

Information.svg If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. [1] --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Islandinfo[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Islandinfo, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mauritius-magazine.com. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Islandinfo[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Islandinfo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010[edit]

Information.svg Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Islandinfo. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Islandinfo[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

Fails

This essay reflects one view of the community's current consensus about the notability of periodicals, including magazines, newspapers, academic journals, and similar periodic publications.

For the purposes of this guideline, a periodical is a recognized published work that appears in a new edition on a regular schedule.[1][2][3] This guideline covers the kinds of periodicals that are formally published, that is they (usually after 1974) have an ISSN code, are circulated in libraries or other reference sources, and (usually or often) appear in paper. A few periodicals may be notable despite lacking these, and in such rare cases good reasons should be evidenced. Regularly updated and reissued reference books (dictionaries, encyclopedias, style guides, legal guides, etc.), and regular publications that are not "works" of the publishing body, are not covered under this guideline. Publications and periodicals falling outside these criteria need to be assessed by reference to other guidelines or the general notability criteria instead.

It is possible for a periodical not to meet the criteria of this guideline but to meet another subject's notability guidelines. Conversely, if a periodical is notable under this guideline, its possible failure to meet other subject's notability guideline is not important.

Criteria[edit]

If a periodical meets any one of the following conditions, as evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria, it is likely to be notable. If a periodical meets none of these conditions, it may still be notable, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the periodical will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. See the Notes and Examples section below before applying this guideline.

  1. The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education
  2. The periodical has received a notable award or honor at a national or international level.
  3. The periodical is or was the proceedings of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society).
  4. The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works.[notes 1]

It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Other considerations[edit]

Self-publication[edit]

This would include fanzines and other similar publications. While there are some fanzines which would meet the criteria for inclusion (either the ones listed here, or other notability criteria), most are not going to be notable. By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the publisher or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and WP:NOTADVERTISING for more information.

Not yet or newly published periodicals[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles about periodicals that are not yet published are strongly discouraged and such articles are only accepted under criteria other than those provided in this guideline, typically because the anticipation of the periodical is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the periodical will be published, which sources include the title of the periodical and an approximate date of first publication.

Additionally, periodicals which have only been published for a short time generally do not meet the threshold for inclusion. Exceptions should be rare and accompanied by multiple independent sources showing notability for such a new publication.

Non-contemporary periodicals[edit]

From a pragmatic standpoint, the vast majority of periodicals upon which articles are written which invite a notability judgment call and which find their way to articles for deletion, are from the modern era. Nevertheless, the notability of periodicals published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern periodicals may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the periodical has been widely cited or written about, whether issues or content have been recently reprinted (note that a flurry of mentions in one context is not by itself good evidence), the fame that the periodical enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of such publications.

Academic journals[edit]

Academic journals serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do periodicals intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, the bulk of standards delineated previously for mainstream periodicals are incompatible in the academic bailiwick. Again, common sense should prevail. In that case, notability should rely on whether it is published by an academic press,[notes 2] how widely the periodical is cited by other academic publications, papers, or in the media,[notes 3] how influential the periodical is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Periodical". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved April 22, 2010. 
  2. ^ "Periodical". Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 22, 2010. 
  3. ^ "Define Periodical". Dictionary.com. Retrieved April 22, 2010. 

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ A periodical that is considered reliable enough to be used regularly as a reliable source by a large number of other works (especially scholarly and other academic works) is considered notable enough to have an article, just the same as an academic who is highly regarded and widely cited is considered notable per WP:PROF.
  2. ^ Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream periodical by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that must be passed before publication is allowed to go forward. See university book publishing companies for a partial list of such presses. Note that because a large portion of (en.)Wikipedia articles are written by English speaking people from English speaking nations, this list currently has an English speaking bias.
  3. ^ A periodical's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or less) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material.

uk:Вікіпедія:Критерії значимості періодичних видань

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Islandinfo[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

Possibly fails WP:NMAGAZINE

While all 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kudpung (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)