Content deleted Content added
template |
reposition |
||
Line 1:
{{AFC submission|d|reason|<!-- Template:Talkspin -->
{{Draft article}}▼
This draft is a request to [[WP:SPINOUT|spin out]] an article, a form of [[WP:SPLIT|splitting]]. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article.
Line 7:
|u=HumOutcomes|ns=118|decliner=Robert McClenon|declinets=20200117064746|reason2=mergeto|details2=Attacks on humanitarian workers|ts=20191205150112}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
{{AFC submission|d|web|u=HumOutcomes|ns=118|demo=|decliner=Worldbruce|declinets=20191023000651|small=yes|ts=20190627181826}} <!-- Do not remove this line! -->
▲{{Draft article}}
{{AFC comment|1=The subject-specific guideline that applies is [[WP:NWEB]]. The draft's lead says that according to ''The New York Times'', the database "is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats." Reliable sources frequently cite the database in its subject area, so I think the ''NYT'' is right. But my reading of [[WP:WEBCRIT]] is that web notability is not demonstrated by the database being cited frequently (unlike the guidelines for [[WP:PROF|academics]] and for [[WP:NMEDIA|newspapers, magazines, and academic journals]]). Instead, the database itself needs to be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial works.
| |||