Mspringel

Welcome!

Hello, Mspringel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Journal of Emerging Investigators, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Journal of Emerging Investigators

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Journal of Emerging Investigators requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Emerging Investigators

The article Journal of Emerging Investigators has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable journal publishing just a handful of articles each year. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mspringel. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Journal of Emerging Investigators, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• 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.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Randykitty (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Journal of Emerging Investigators for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Journal of Emerging Investigators 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/Journal of Emerging Investigators 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) 14:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, really, welcome. Nice article. We hope you'll stick around. There's useful advice on this page about how to manage the land mines in editing a new article on a topic you are involved with. But once you manage all that, I hope you will stay and enjoy a little editing for fun and, well, I like to follow it down improbable links. I hope you find aspects of editing to enjoy. Welcome.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• Thank you! I'm definitely still learning! It's been fun so far. Mspringel (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing

This sentence: The journal has been the subject of a post on Nature's blog.[5] It's better to work information found in an article into the body of the WP article, than to simply state that an article exists. You can also begin a sentence, According to an article published in a blog on Nature, ....E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at the edit I just made, and you'll see how to cite multiple phrases, sentences to the same source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC) The way to avert deletion to improve the article. By expanding the text with sourced details, and by finding new sources that bring new information to the page. i.e., it doesn't need more sources on the printing font project, unless an article brings new information directly pertinent to the Journal. Hope this helps.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Remember that new editors are entitled to iVote (i.e., Keep or Delete, always giving a reasoned defense of your position, good manners to mention if yo are the nom) in AFD (deletion debates). These are debates, not votes. The minority wins if it makes better, polic-based and evidence-based arguments. Although, the easiest way to keep an article undergoing AFD up is to find new, reliable sources and put them on the page. I sometimes start by iVoting Keep, but switch to delete when I realize, on closer reading, that the sources were less persuasive than I had thought at first.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)