I agree with Nemo's assessment. I would not have speedy-deleted it myself,
but I do not have enough information to conclude that User:Seraphimblade
was right or wrong to do so. I don't know how extensively they sought
additional source material, etc. Unless somebody provides indication of
sufficient source materials, it's difficult for an admin (or anybody) to
assess notability, so often articles are deleted. The best way to avoid
speedy deletion of a new article -- and to help the users and
administrators who patrol such things to do the job well -- is to be sure
that multiple high quality sources are included in the first edit, along
with a clear statement of significance.
Looks like the article is well on its way now.
Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think the article was most likely deleted for being
a "sub-stub"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub#Basic_information , in that
it didn't provide even the most basic information about the subject. In
particular, the first line mixes present ("is") and past (a colony
disbanded decades ago) making it impossible for the reader to reliably
place the subject in time. Context was not misunderstood; it was simply not
provided.
John Jackson, 13/09/2016 19:04:
Wikipedia seems to be a gang of
ignorant youngster "editors"
FYI this stereotype has already been disproved in 2011.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011/Executive
_Summary#PROFILE
Nemo
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l