Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2015 June 6

= June 6 =

Request on 18:12:47, 6 June 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Mgunter23
I am pretty new to contributing, but have a concern related to my attempts to include the topic of Levolution in Wikipedia. Levolution is a new but very important, and certainly notable, scientific concept related directly to Evolution. It is not well known currently.

The entry has evidently been judged as non-Notable. However, I can find links all over the web to some meaning of it, and that is part of the problem. Notably, the scientific subject is covered by a book that has been published by Archway, an arm of Simon and Schuster. The book is for sale on Amazon, sampled on Google Scholar. There is a website about it at levolution.com. I think it is notable in these ways. Actually I think it is much more than notable. The entry for this subject would be Levolution (science)for disambiguation purposes.

Disambiguation is a big problem here.

Levolution is also a music album from an Australian musician.

Levolution is also the name of a feature set in the electronic game Battlefield 4. The game company EA markets with its graphics so if you google "Levolution," that is virtually all you get. The scientific concept, Levolution, needs to exist in the Wikipedia world, and the need is particularly great because in online media it is totally smothered by the images of warring game characters.

This is not about selling books, or anything commercial. It is about the notable scientific concepts of Levolution, which happen to be central to cosmology.

For Wikipedia to judge it negatively as not "notable" does not seem correct. Published works of cutting edge science are notable by most definitions. If accepted, it also needs dismbiguation due to the other meanings.

Mike Gunter

Mgunter23 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Mgunter23 (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you asking why Draft:Levolution (disambiguation) was declined on 21 October 2014? I'm confident that it wasn't because the reviewer found the concept difficult to search for. Wikipedia's General notability guideline tells us that a topic is presumed to be suitable for an article if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources." If the draft was declined as not "notable", then it's because the draft didn't demonstrate, by citing sources, that the subject met this inclusion criteria.
 * You mention a website and an associated book, by which I presume you mean: Archway is a self-publishing company. Wikipedia generally does not consider self-published sources reliable. The same goes for the website. If those are the sum total of the sources, then the subject is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia at this time.
 * If the concept has traction, multiple other people will write about it independently in reliable sources and it will become notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or forum for "getting the word out." Worldbruce (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)