User talk:Paul Bowler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A tag has been placed on Louise Harrison . . .

A tag has been placed on Louise Harrison, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company or website, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Louise Harrison is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Louise Harrison. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. You might also want to read our general biography criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that admins should wait a while for you to assert his/her/their notability, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and then immediately add such an assertion. It is also a very good idea to add citations from reliable sources to ensure that your article will be verifiable. Vectro 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paul, Do you feel that Louise Harrison meets the criteria on Wikipedia:Notability (people)? If so, please explain that on the article's talk page. Notability is not as much about the page having insufficient information so much as the question of whether or not a page on this topic should exist at all, so adding more information will not make her more notable (unless it demonstrates her notability as described above). The deletion tag is just my opinion; if you would like to have other Wikipedians review the deletion, I can change it from a speedy deletion request to a articles for deletion request, which allows more discussion.

Also, when you leave messages on wikipedia, it's a good idea to sign them with four tildes ("~~~~"); that will put your username and the date and time of your message. Cheers, Vectro 03:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your contributions to A Theory of Relativity. Don't be discouraged from one of your articles being deleted, it happens. Delta Tango | Talk 20:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link to British

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom, Great Britain or British English by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology for My AFC page error

I would like to apologise for my mistake on the Articles for Creation page. Everything below the article I have just created has gone green. I am now trying to sort this out Paul Bowler 23:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Phew!!!! Glad I finally sorted that one out! It's the first time I've attempted to create something from the AFC page. Hopefully, my next attempt will be less fraught with problems. Paul Bowler 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Beyond Black" -- AfC

I see you contradicted my rejection of Beyond Black in WP:AfC

The reason you gave was:

  • It was SHORTLISTED for the 2006 Orange Prize. Are you actually looking at the sources for these articles?

Yes - I did look at the sources. Did YOU read the notability requirements for books in Wikipedia? I don't think so.

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (books) - the fact that Beyond Black was shortlisted for the Orange Prize is not sufficient. WP:BK requires that the book win a major prize - merely being shortlisted is insufficient. So - given that this is not an acceptable reason for creating the article - we are left with the other criteria in WP:BK - I'd like to know which of those you feel apply. If (as I suspect) none of them do then I'd like you to add an apology to your condemnation of my decision - and then to have the courage to put the new article into the WP:AfD pile.

Furthermore, the AfC rules state that the person submitting the request supply the reasons why the article should be created. If they fail to do so - then a rejection is appropriate.

SteveBaker 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Response

I posted the following response to this user.

Hi Steve. Yes, I did contradict your rejection, but the comment you accuse me of making is not mine. It had been added before I looked at the article. As far as I understand it, the user asked for another editor to review their submissions, so this is what I have done. In my opinion, the article does meet the guidelines, and I have marked it as a stub so that it can be expanded by someone else. No offence meant by this, and I hope none has been taken. By the way, if you want to reply to this message, it's probably a good idea to leave it on my talk page. This will ensure that I can read and respond to it. Cheers Paul Bowler 14:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And on the AfC page Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-12-09

Wikipedia has an article on this book's author, who meets our guidelines. Whether the book also does depends on how you interpret the rules, I guess. No offence was intended by my review of your decision. But I do strongly object to your assertion that it was me who inserted the above comment re: the Orange Prize, and that I am accepting my own submissions. Paul Bowler 16:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/User_talk%7EPaul_Bowler_f85b.html"