KylieTastic

It is approximately 3:26 AM where this user lives (Cambridge, UK).

If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Click this to start a New Question here

AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random... Current Backlog: 1,848 pending submissions

 

Page Merge Proposal!

Should list of storms name pages Debby & Debbie's be merged? Because both names sound exactly the same, but with different spelling and it doesn't make sense that they are both two separate pages. I even placed a talk page on Debby's page and I even created a draft page on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_storms_named_Debby

Please let me know what you think of this idea. YoyoIveGotXP (talk) 05:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi YoyoIveGotXP, as List of storms named Debby and List of storms named Debbie exist you would need to start a merge discussion on the article talk page per WP:MERGE. Yes they sound the same, so if someone heard it mentioned they would not know the spelling used but that is why each has a hatnote at the top to the other article. For anyone who is searching after seeing it seeing it written may be confused to have them joined. That's why a merge discussion would be needed to gain a consensus. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Why was my draft declined?

I submitted an AFC draft called Draft:Horseshoe Lake, Manitoba, and the draft got declined because it is not notable yet for inclusion, but you did not add a comment on the draft page with more specific details. You should give me specific details on why it was declined. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@NicePrettyFlower the decline gives the details. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). You have a single source that is user-generated content so zero reliable sources. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Then why is it not showing a username when you look at the webpage of the source used? NicePrettyFlower (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@NicePrettyFlower, it's like Wikipedia or IMDB it's just user generated see the login at the top right and see https://www.mindat.org/a/about "This information is entered by an army of volunteers worldwide and then verified by our team of experts". Unlike IMDB I've not come across bad info on mindat, but even even if that was taken as a valid source it would only show it existed not that is was notable - see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). KylieTastic (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

on submission

what are the reason for rejection. as i can see article contain valid and real information Nihalsinh Rathod (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nihalsinh Rathod all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). KylieTastic (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

please refer how to add subject in my article Nihalsinh Rathod (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See Help:Your first article KylieTastic (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

draft submission Draft:NNC2215

Why does it need secondary source? It is from a reviewed paper. Also, its just a stub for the new drug. I honestly don't understand why is the original review paper not sufficient. Labratscientist (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Labratscientist, it was not myself that did the more recent review but I'll try to explain. Basically it's because that is what the current policies and guidelines require. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of "notable" subjects not a general publishing platform, where it has been declined by consensus that being "notable" means having multiple non trivial independent sources in most cases. Being published in Nature is a good start but another couple of sources will help show notability. However at the moment probably all reporting will be based on the single original source so some may still challenge. Ideally subjects like this would have secondary studies to back them up, but it's probably going to be some time for those. Another option until more sources are available is to incorporate it into insulin and/or hyperglycemia. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Labratscientist. I'd like to add that primary literature is typically not considered reliable on Wikipedia for biomedical information, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) § Avoid primary sources. This is because primary literature is often exploratory and do not reflect firm findings, and the results have not been, e.g., replicated by other groups. It is frequently the case that primary research findings need to be further interpreted and evaluated to determine, for example, how much stock to put in them, which Wikipedia editors are not supposed to do except in very limited cases. Best of luck. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello KylieTastic: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thanks!!!

Thanks for all your great contributions to Wikipedia and for all your help. Happy Holidays and New Year!!! FloridaArmy (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)