User talk:Amerloni

Hi!

and welcome to Wikipedia. However... (There's always one, isn't there?) I've tagged Hot Topics as unreferenced because, well, it is. You need to get references from outside sources - not blogs, forums, directories or company sites. These must show coverage of the subject, not just mention it. Peridon (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sorry, but I think you need more independent coverage. The Ebsco page you linked doesn't mention this mag, and Embase looks more like a directory than an independent review. Practically all the rest of the links are to company or associated sites. Coverage means reviews of something, articles about something - not just brief mentions - and so on. These are to establish notability. Please leave the refimprove tag on - someone else might come up with something if they see it. Have a look at WP:GNG for a start. I'll look for other relevant policies when I'm a bit less tired. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! thank you for helping out, but I have noticed that other journals such as The Lancet and the Journal of Hypertension have even less reliable or independent sources and do not have any refimprove tag on. I do not really understand what you might consider as independent. However, our series is mentioned in the lower part of the Ebsco page, and being indexed in Embase and certified by HONcode is not a simple procedure but is consequent to a deep review process which confirms the scientific validity of the journal. I might add the it has been included in 2009's edition of Periodicals for Health Science, and some scientific papers that cite our articles, but I am not sure if this or similar refs might satisfy your requirement. Please advise. Thanks again --Amerloni (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hot Topics in..., you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I think The Lancet is in a category of its own... Will look at Hypertension. Now for yours. Intute is a just about passable ref - but needs others for support. (Coverage is the keyword.) HON cert says you comply with certain standards, not that you are notable. Presumably it has to be applied for. I can't find you in a search on the Embase site - haven't really tried to fight my way into the resources there, though. Your other refs are company sites. OK as back-up and further info things, but don't establish notability. (I don't know any specialists in your areas to check with - if you had an obstetrics title I could. We'd still need accessible refs not personal ones. BTW, your hypertension mag - only three times since, or three times a year since? Yhe tag from someone else about links means put [[ brackets round important words like Cardiology that have articles on Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Hypertension now has an 'unreferenced' tag. Lancet looks to have quite a few refs, which I have not checked. May do when I recover from trip to pub for a meal... (The regular editors do have outside lives - I should have been somewhere else to discuss a website, but I'll see them again.) Peridon (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hot Topics in...

The article Hot Topics in... has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Series of fairly new journals (varying from 5 years to just established). None seem to be included in any selective major databases. Do not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusio (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hot Topics in... for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hot Topics in... is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Topics in... until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]