The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MaxEmanuel! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guido Moerkotte until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.
Hi MaxEmanuel! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your addition of a date of birth to Natalie Morales (actress). The edit summary said, "Birthdate according to imdb", but IMDb is not a relaible source for content of Wikipedia articles. Please see WP:IMDB for comments on that topic.
Also, please remember that when you add content to an article it needs an accompanying inline citation to indicate the source, rather than mentioning the source in an edit summary. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the four pages that you linked, I can't determine whether any of them are reliable because I didn't see any indication of where the information on the pages came from. (Lack of that information makes me question them, but I won't say not to use them.)
For future reference, two kinds of sources that should be avoided are those that are
self-published - Blogs are the most common form of self-published source. See WP:SELFPUB for more about that (including limited exceptions).
user-generated - Examples include Wikipedia, IMDb, and Find A Grave. See WP:USERGENERATED for names of other sources in that category.
IMO this should be condensed and merged into the German Informatics Society article. IMO does not meet the wp:notability requirement for existence as a separate article.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
thanks for reviewing the page! I added the CORE ranking to underline the importance of BTW as an international conference. The ACM counterpart, SIGMOD, received an independent page, which is not merged into the one of the ACM, so why should this be done with BTW into GI? Let me know what I should do to provide further evidence for notability. Best,
I noticed that you just pinged me. You didn't ping me in July so sorry that I missed it. As a preface, in July I just did a preliminary look and wrote some thoughts. Right now it's just in the que waiting for the main review. If you want my guess, some other reviewers probably looked at it and are probably avoiding it because it's a tough one because they probably see that needs the reviewer unilateral merge it or take it to AFD where the result would probably be "merge".
Despite the sound of the term, wp:notability isn't about being notable / important, it's (in this case) about having independent sources that cover the topic in depth. So to answer your question, it would be to find and include a couple of independent sources that cover it in depth. If you find and include those, you could just take the tag off or ping me if you prefer that I take it off. This is good material that you spend good work on developing. IMO perhaps instead of worrying about whether it's in a separate article, why not put the material is a good secure home on firm ground in the society's article? Either way, I'm just a reviewer that gave some preliminary advice. It's waiting to get a review. And either way, thanks for your work and happy editing! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
