User talk:Artmaid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Artmaid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

The page for Lee Woods appears to be a candidate for speedy deletion. Let's see some critical reviews from a national newspaper to back up the inclusion of this artist in Wikipedia? SiGarb | Talk 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Artmaid - I'm replying to your reference desk query here, because the RD itself isn't the best place to put those questions. I've done a little digging, and the administrator who actually deleted your article on Lee Woods was Luigi30, the reason he gave was 'nn' (non-notable).

What that usually means is that the article didn't assert the notability of the subject (so for example an article that simply said 'Tony Blair is an Englishman' would be a candidate for deletion, as it didn't assert the notability. Similarly, an article that read 'John Smith is the Prime Minister of the UK' would still be up for deletion, as a hoax, but wouldn't be deleted under the same criteria, because the second article did attempt to assert notability.

We do have guidelines in wikipedia for what constitutes notability, notability of persons, and for Biographies of living persons. I can't access the article any longer, because it's been deleted, but my guess would be that lack of assertion was the problem. If you recreate it, citing reliable sources, then it shouldn't be deleted for that reason, however as you noted in your reference desk enquiry, original research is not permitted in the articles.

I do hope this event doesn't put you off contributing - if you'd like to discuss this any further, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.--Mnemeson 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in creating an article. I am sorry someone nominated it for deletion and got it eliminated in your absence. I'm sure you could have added references to substantiate the notability of the subject had you been aware of the AFD nomination. Perhaps you could add the references and re-create it. It is not generally the responsibility of the reader or other editors of Wikipedia to go to the web or the library and verify the claims someone else has made in an article, although I sometimes do that when I see an article up for deletion and the subject looks interesting. Articles are bound to get deleted if they lack verifiable sources included as references. Asserting that one is an expert in the field and can be trusted is not sufficient, since many people are self proclaimed experts on some pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, religious doctrines, or fandom of someone or something. Britannica might pay an expert to write an article, but there is no editorial board to vet those who write or edit Wiipedia articles. (I have found errors in Britannica). I consider myself an expert on 19th century electrical technology, and electric utilities, but I can't get away with saying "Trust me- I'm an expert on this." My sources must be cited. Scholarly books or journals are good for many articles, since they are edited, and general circulation newspapers or magazines are good for newsworthy events or pop culture, since they have their own editorial boards. Websites, blogs, and Wikipedia articles are not considered valid reliable sources, since anyone can make them say anything. There are sometimes absolute hoaxes, which get deleted because of a lack of sources. Edison 17:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Horatio Holzbein

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Horatio Holzbein, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Horatio Holzbein seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Horatio Holzbein, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with your articles

I think I see part of why you are having problems with Wikipedia articles. One of our central principles is verifiability. If you say somebody won "a major award" you need to say instead what award it is they won, and create a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on that award. (If there is no Wikipedia article about that award, we may question the description of it as "major.") If you say an article appeared somewhere, you need to give us specific references, ideally with a URL to the site (especially with a purported online publication), not just wave a hand vaguely and say "multiple places"! One of the problems we have here at Wikipedia is the tendency of some folks to think that this is a venue for advertising, a way to achieve fame for obscure or unknown persons, rather than a reference work to uncover what has already been published about persons who are in fact already notable. Thus, we get a trifle skeptical at times, and can become (I fear) a trifle impatient at what are perceived as unsupported claims of improtance. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)