Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amphetamine on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why you say that mention in scientific journals "independent of the subject" is not evidence of notability, even though Wikipedia appears to support this. It would seem to me that this is the essence of notability. Can you explain? Henrilebec (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I said To establish notability, the sources need to be independent of the subject.

Please see the table below (click "show"), which details the sources that you have cited:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1390475				✘ No
https://doi.org/10.3171%2Fjns.1952.9.1.0083				✘ No
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538079				✘ No
https://boneandjoint.org.uk/Article/10.1302/0301-620X.33B4.562				✘ No
https://www.macdonaldpublishing.com/				✘ No
The Problem of Backache			(i can't access it)	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The general notability guideline ("GNG") is used to test whether a subject is notable. As you can see, the problem with these sources is that (1) most of them are not independent, so they are written by the subject, and (2) they don't contain significant coverage: these sources aren't talking about the subject himself. If you can't find enough sources to satisfy GNG, then the subject doesn't merit his own article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is confusing: You have assessed the National Library of Medicine as "NOT INDEPENDENT". This is a ".gov" source. But your assessment says it's not independent. Same for the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. How is that not "independent". There are also cites from scientific journals, admittedly not quite as complete as the others, but still obviously independent. Citations and assessments were done differently 85 years ago, but they're still obviously independent since the works are always assessed by independent reviewers (independent of the submitter). Can you explain? The doi.org source is also helpful in identifying old sources. Especially are you able to explain why a .gov source is not independent? Also, the GNG section says that "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications". 5 of the 6 sources are "peer-reviewed", although the last requires some additional detective work. Many thanks for helping to verify additional insight into the roots of this man's extraordinary medical research. It's solely because of his work that broken arms and legs are no longer amputated. Henrilebec (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have assessed those sources as not independent, is because they were written by the subject. Also, per WP:COISOURCE: The peer-review process does not guarantee independence of a source.

Please note that these sources aren't about him, thus they do not have significant coverage of the subject, thus they do not count towards GNG.

Also, consensus at the help desk shows that WP:PROF#C1 is not met. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why you don't accept that the subject meets all of the notability criteria, especially (a) and (b) "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work . . ." Here I observe that you maintain that Burke is the author of the research and is therefore unacceptable. But the criterion says that is a requirement. Is the COISOURCE criterion wrong?

Also, your last source says "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." Here there is no doubt that Burke's meticulous research discovered a profound solution to a horrifying and ghastly medical challenge.

Can you kindly explain why you disagree with these Wikipedia criteria? The criteria appear to say that his work is notable, yet you maintain that it's not. Henrilebec (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I have said is that consensus at the help desk is that the subject is not notable. If you believe otherwise and you have new arguments that you haven't already brought up in the previous discussion, I advise you to create a new thread at the AfC help desk. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to include in the Help Desk query, the admissions all 'round that those assessing this proposed article all appear to admit that they don't know anything about the topic addressed ion the proposed article: medical research. The admissions were honestly and candidly admitted, so the issue appears to be a matter of how to deal with advanced scientific topics being assessed by people who know nothing about the significance of the topic being assessed. Can you suggest how to deal with this apparent road-block? Henrilebec (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on consensus, and as I have stated, consensus seems to be that the subject is not notable, so it's probably best to drop the stick. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's difficult to ignore the fact that there actually appears to be no consensus. As far as I can see, the only concrete feedback is that there appears to be a lack of consensus at the help desk, i.e. that they don't have an opinion one way or the other. Do you think it's worth continuing with the draft article, perhaps with additional journal references, published textbooks, and library holdings to firm up the notability? Henrilebec (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a couple of reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in-depth, then sure. If you have found sources like this, then if you want to, I can take a look at them to verify that they're meeting WP:GNG. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@kovcszaln6 Hello, I'm new to wikipedia so please forgive my ignorance. I added a mission statement to the article but it disappeared after you edited it. I can't tell whether you deleted it or if it was done by a bot. If it was you, can you tell me if there is a rule against using mission statements? thanks Juanjosemda (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC) juanjosemda[reply]

@Juanjosemda: Hi, thank you for reaching out. I believe it is a bit promotional to include it, especially in its own section. If you believe that it serves an encyclopedic value, then I would suggest you to add it within a paragraph. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6

Hello, I tried embedding a sentence from the mission statement in the paragraph about the current organizational leader....saying that he maintained the organization's original mission. Thanks again for your guidance on how to improve this article.

Juanjosemda (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6

Another editor (Atlantic306) rejected the embedded version. I will take any suggestions you are willing to offer. I'm just trying to figure out how to include the phrase " To minister the love of Jesus Christ to the Least, the Last, and the Lost of our Community" which is part of their mission statement but more importantly is what they say is the key to their work.

thanks, Juanjosemda (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kovcszaln6 The other editor reversed the changes once he / she heard I had already responded to your guidance.

thanks again,

Juanjosemda (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Changing username on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism on a "Wikipedia style and naming" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on AfC team, but I've looked over Draft:Parsons Sun and it seems notable enough to me. I primarily edit wiki pages related to U.S. newspapers, and the Parsons Sun warrants an article since it's a historic newspaper of record with ties to two Kansas governors. I've gone ahead and fixed some sources and copy-edited. I'm happy to help out more if you have any suggestions. So could you please reconsider approving it? Thanks, Eric Schucht (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Schucht: Hi, thank you for reaching out. Considering that there are 40 references, could you provide the WP:THREE best ones in order to speed up the review? Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good rule of thumb is to look over this essay: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability. It's not official, but I agree with its conclusions. The Parsons Sun is a newspaper of record and a member of the Kansas Press Association. So in my opinion, source 3 is the most important. Any of the sources from the Library of Congress are also noteworthy (sources 1, 2, 24) along with coverage of recent sales (5 and 39). Eric Schucht (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Schucht: The essay you linked to is not official, so I believe it doesn't affect notability. I might be wrong, but those LOC sources seem to be primary and routine sources, so they don't contribute to GNG. I'm not sure whether source 5 contains WP:SIGCOV, and source 39 isn't independent if the newspaper is a member of the Kansas Press Association. If you believe the newspaper meets one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (media) § Newspapers, magazines and journals, please cite a reliable source that verifies that. Thank you. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per point 2, the newspaper was owned by two notable figures, Henry J. Allen (Source 26) and Clyde Reed (Source 33). It's also covered in regional history books (Source 12 and 13). Per point 3, it is considered a reliable source as it is a newspaper of record and a member of the Kansas Press Association (Source 3). Per point 5, the paper is a significant source of information for Labette County, Kansas, which has a population of 20,000. Eric Schucht (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Schucht: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Those regional history books only have passing mentions of the newspaper. Point three doesn't state that it needs to be reliable, it states considered by reliable sources to be authoritative or influential in their subject area. For point 5, I don't think Labette County counts as an ethnic [or] other non-trivial niche market. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Parsons Sun isn't notable, then why do other similar publications in the region have articles? Why is The Courtland Journal and Peabody Gazette-Bulletin notable and the Parsons Sun isn't? What's the difference? Eric Schucht (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paper was also written up in the the region's largest paper (Source 37). Doesn't that count for notability? Eric Schucht (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, taking these into consideration, I'll accept it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Eric Schucht (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]