User talk:Equazcion/sandbox2/2013 10 10 October Oct

Geeky project self-notability?
I conducted a review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site (2). If you aren't a microbiologist, you'll have a great deal of difficulty going through the article. In addition, the subject didn't seem like it was notable. The main reference twas to journal article written by the author of the AfC WP article himself, so it lacked independent verification.

I declined it for non-notability, and sent a message explaining both the notability issue and the fact that a WP article needs to be approachable.

The author's response was:
 * 1) Journal: It is documented in journals, so notable
 * 2) Rfam database: It is part of a project where all entries to the Rfam RNA database have matching WP entries, per the WP:RNA project
 * 3) Partnership: This linking of Rfam and WP was announced as a partnership on RNA journal submits articles to Wikipedia

I'm not sure what to do with this.
 * Does the partnership override notability concerns? Does the Rfam database provide notability?
 * If the database provides notability, then there's hardly a scientific subject, no matter how obscure and inactive, that would fail notability, since almost all science is in a collection somewhere -- is that policy? Do we want it to be policy?
 * Finally, if the above fails to satisfy notability, is independence an issue when the article is published is a noted journal

Really, all the above is about notability of a very technical subject. Do we need to be punctilious about notability when there is deep question like this just for creation? Or do we sometimes give a pass if it might be notable but hard to tell without subject expertise, and let the community shake it out later once published?

- Dovid (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If the average reader isn't going to understand the page, I would say go with your judgement. The Parthnership does not overrride notability.  It's only a directive to the external site's membership that in order to publish on their site, a summary must be submitted to wikipedia.  We are under no obligation to accept the submission.
 * The database confers some notability but how does this one particular subject merit a inclusion nod over diseases?
 * Without having looked at the merits of the submission I'd also probably call out Original Research. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I'm not comfortable making the decision on this one. ANyone care to take it over? Be sure to read the existing AfC review comment on the article page, author Walternmoss's response on my talk page, and a response I placed on Walter's talk page. Dovid (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Try asking for expert help at one of the medicine- or microbiology-related WikiProjects. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs) 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there was already an article about this topic,Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site, and it was moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ebv-sisRNA by U|Walternmoss, after being reviewed by FoCuSandLeArN. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a particular case. I've had a chat with said user, and gave him some tips on how to address these issues (e.g. secondary sourcing, lay encyclopaedic tone, notability, etc.). I lean on accept for these specific articles, as those pieces of RNA are notable in the field. There's extensive research on them and there's a WikiProject currently looking after them, so they have more potential than many of the other articles coming from AfC. I'd also like to point out that the B-Class criteria states "but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material may find it incomplete or perhaps too high-level"; so the key here is language and how to approach the topic for it to be suitable for all audiences. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would again suggest asking at a specific WikiProject. As far as I know a page being too advanced for an average reader is not a reason to decline, on its own, although it is something to tell the submission author for him to introduce the subject properly. Gryllida (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. The problems with this article are somewhat outside this project's remit. If the notability is highly questionable then AfD is the proper community discussion venue. If the technicality of the article is too high, then it needs attention from a subject-matter expert; that is not a barrier to its mainspace creation. Pol430   talk to me  16:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)