User talk:Rfw

Welcome!
Hello, Rfw, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:KSR Evidence, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.
 * Article development
 * Standard layout
 * Lead section
 * The perfect article
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page or you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Deppty (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:KSR Evidence


A tag has been placed on Draft:KSR Evidence, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Deppty (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for your message and declaring your conflict of interest. That is required by our T&Cs to avoid a blocke, but doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls


 * Much of your text was unsourced or sourced inappropriately. MIn particular, while your own website may be permissable for some basic uncontroversial facts, it's certainly not appropriate for value judgements like, KSR Evidence provides a critical appraisal and a short, accessible bottom line. Most of your other refs don't mention KSR although


 * You say it's an independent research company. The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.


 * It's not clear to me how it meets the notability criteria I've linked here. It doesn't appear to have any staff, turnover, profits or verifiable number of subscribers


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You don't tell us anything about the company beyond what it sells, and you make unsourced claims for the services it claims to provide, basically a promo, although I've seen worse.


 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
 * I didn't run a full plagiarism test, but I note that some of your text is a close paraphrase of
 * Nothing to do with my deletion, but I'm surprised that your logo is free for anyone to use for any purpose.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:43, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jimfbleak - Thanks for your response which is greatly appreciated. I have written as well as contributed to various articles across the Wikipedia, mainly in other languages, and discussed the relevance of topics. However, this is my first regarding encounter of the G11 criterion. Please find my responses to your specific points below:
 * Independent verifable sources: The notability guidelines stipulate "that the organization or product has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product" which is the case (please see references 4 and 6 of the draft). I acknowledge that "references should be in-line", however, I am unsure about your comment concerning "bare urls". Please elaborate.
 * Text was unsourced or sourced inappropriately: Reading the sentence you cited, I accept that "accessible" can be seen as value statement. However, I consider the references to "critical appraisal" as well as "short bottom line" to be "basic uncontroversial facts". Please elaborate if your view differs.
 * Notability / independent research company: Unless I am mistaken, the notability guidelines list four primary criteria ("multiple" not included) which appears to be in line with your statement that "all four criteria" are counted towards notability.
 * Significant coverage: The academic paper cited as reference 4 compared KSR Evidence to another database, discussing the function etc. in some detail.
 * Independence: As mentioned before, references 4 and 6 are independent sources.
 * Reliable: Cochrane "is one of the best-known organisations that conducts systematic reviews". The Cochrane Handbook (cited as reference 6) can be considered as the "gold standard" of conducting systematic reviews. While systematic reviews are typically based on primary research, such as randomised controlled trials, there are also overview of reviews (also known as umbrella reviews or reviews of reviews) as covered in Chapter 5 of the aforementioned Cochrane Handbook.
 * Secondary source: I think this applies to the aforementioned references.
 * Non-promotional tone: I genuinely tried adopting a neutral tone. Moreover, I checked a few articles already included in the Wikipedia in order to align to these. However, I am happy to review this and/or submit a draft to be editted.
 * No urls in the article: Noted and happy to correct. I assume this applies to references 1 to 3 as well as 5.
 * About the company: Not sure whether standards have changed over time but there does not seem to be much difference to articles on similar topics, however, happy to discuss or review relevant guidance.
 * Use of copyrighted text: Point taken and happy to change the text accordingly.
 * Logo: To be honest, I struggled with this one, even after spending a considerable amount of time reading about this. I concluded that, because the artwork has been created more than 150 years ago, the chosen classification was correct, however, I am happy to review this again or indeed take further advice.
 * Thanks for your consideration. Rfw (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As I say, I've seen worse. There is nothing to stop you submitting a revised draft, although I should say that because of your COI you shouldn't move it to article space yourself. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)