User talk:Stephtbi

Welcome!
Hello, Stephtbi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Rehabilomics, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Wgolf (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Rehabilomics


A tag has been placed on Rehabilomics, 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, product, group, service or person 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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 deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Wgolf (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Help request
How do I contact an administrator about creating a page? Stephtbi (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved this down, because new items should go at the bottom of talk pages, to keep the conversation in order.


 * You can put  at the bottom of your talk page with a question below it; but you don't need permission from an administrator to create a page. Just be WP:BOLD and go ahead, but read WP:Your first article first for advice.


 * If you are referring to "Rehabilomics", I am afraid this is not likely to be an acceptable subject, for reasons explained at WP:No original research, which includes:

"'If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery.'"
 * and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I need assistance for clarifying why the "Rehabilomics" Wikipage was removed. The faculty member I work with, Dr. Amy Wagner, coined the term "Rehabilomics" for the new field of study. Rehabilomics helps describe the combination of the field rehabilitation and "omics" (Omics-as related to the Wikipedia page Omics-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omics [accessed 6Mar15]). This term is relatively new, but is now being employed by other investigators. Here is a link to PubMed citations for those works: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/1ByGl2CIbYi/collections/47629771/public/. I appreciate your assistance. Stephtbi (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I will leave the "helpme" flag up so that you can get other opinions.


 * The actual reason cited for deletion was "advertising or promotion", because it appeared that you were engaged in (to quote WP:NEO) "an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" which, judging by the ® symbol, is a proprietary one. Since you work with or for the originator of the term, you should read the guideline Conflict of interest.


 * WP:NEO also says: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms... " I notice that, of the nine papers listed in your PubMed reference, Dr Wagner was an author in six. Are there papers, written independently of Dr Wagner, that discuss the subject of "rehabilomics", rather than just using the word?


 * If you wish, you can ask the deleting administrator, user, whether he is willing to restore the article into a draft page where you can work on it; but I advise you to read WP:NOR and WP:NEO carefully before putting more effort into what I am afraid may turn out to be a waste of your time. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you JohnCD. The "advertisement" tag was placed by the nominator and I agree with it: besides the fact that the term does not appear to have much prominence outside the work of one person, the symbol is bothersome and suggests that we're dealing with a product here that is being advertised on Wikipedia. The article is certainly not written as if we have some scientific term here, and the only external link is to that professor's page. We could put this in a sandbox, but the language isn't very encyclopedic, and the formatting isn't correct either. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above. Dr Wagner was in fact an author in seven of those nine papers, and the other two share an author, too. That's not enough to indicate this new field of study is notable yet. Huon (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)