Content deleted Content added
Commenting on submission (AFCH 0.9.1) |
→top: two more |
||
Line 9:
{{AFC comment|1=Since my initial comment 6 months ago, I see a number of references have been added. Looking over them, most appear to either be documents from the UN or what look like passing mentions from government reports.
It was suggested by [[User:Worldbruce]] that [[WP:NWEB]] is the appropriate guideline to use for judging notability here. I'm not 100% sure that's correct, [[WP:NGO]] might be more appropriate. In any case, please look at those two, and also read [[WP:THREE]]. If you could list here in the comments the three best sources which establish this meets either of those guidelines, that would be a great help to the next person who reviews this. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
PS, the NY Times piece I noted earlier is clearly the best, so two more in addition to that. -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)}}
{{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.
| |||