|
|
|
|
|
|
by raybb
977 days ago
|
|
|
Hey I'm a moderately experienced wikipedia editor. And yeah it's a really annoying thing when you don't get recognized for the hard work put into creating a draft like this. When I'm back at my computer maybe I'll take a look and see how I can help improve your draft. Generally the hardest and most annoying part about a case like this is wikipedia's desire for reliable sources which generally means newspapers or academic sources. You can have something super well known, around forever, and often mentioned but it can be hard to find sources writing about it directly. For example, I wrote the Wikipedia article for high touch (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-touch) and it was quite annoying to try to find sources. Similarly I wrote one for "smell training" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell_training) and the requirements are even higher for anything related to medicine. Anyway, I'm not gonna say I advise you to do this. But if you're really confident that the article meets the notability guidelines you can also create the article in mainspace (instead of draft). If someone tries to delete it then the guidelines are a little different (vs reviewing drafts) because they have to be sure that there aren't sources to make it notable (not just that you didn't use them). Often times people will actually find sources and add them to the article rather than just complain you don't have good enough ones. PS: I'm sure someone will come and explain why I'm wrong here but this has generally been my experience. |
|
|
Which is one of the main ironies associated with Wikipedia notability. Something or someone written about in some small-town newspaper or an obscure journal that five people have read can be considered more notable than something with a fairly big online footprint but nothing canonical.
For that matter, there's a ton of pre-web information that just doesn't really much exist outside of primary sources.