User talk:Jorge M Nunes

Deletion
Bom dia Jorge, thanks for email. I see that the English version was posted by User:98.77.199.251, but I assume that's you, not logged in.
 * I think you misread the deletion edit summary, I didn't mention relevance (something can be relevant to a tiny group), but stated "no evidence of notability", which is not the same. You did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that your paper meets the notability guidelines
 * You are right that I could have researched the subject, but you should realise that it's normal practice on Wikipedia that the creators of articles do the research and references, it's not reasonable to expect others to do it for you.
 * It wouldn't have been worth checking notability anyway, since the article was written in a highly promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims without in-line references to reliable sources as described above include: soon gained huge popularity... one of the most important publications in the Portuguese language outside Brazil... committed to preserve... Credibility and seriousness... one of the most prestigious philantropic organizations.
 * Your claimed circulation figures are referred simply to Google Analytics, makes it hard to check, there surely must be industry data for circulation.
 * I note that it was founded by Jorge Moreira Nunes and Esterliz Mayer Nunes. This suggests at least the possibility of a conflict of interest when it comes to you editing articles about this subject. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your newspaper is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage of the topic in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I'm sorry your first experience of Wikipedia has not been positive, but it's a common mistake to assume that we are a free advertising platform,  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the New York Times is a good example of how a media article should look. Although I've never seen the newspaper (I'm not American), I can see instantly that its claims to notability are backed by an array of mainly impeccable references, and it's been honed by many editors. Your newspaper may be notable, but it needs a neutral encyclopaedic style and proper references to support any claims, thanks again  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)