FYI I added a template to the Talk page that I "borrowed" and blanked
from Lata Mangeshkar's page -- please update / customize as is helpful.
Recommend that to prevent speedy deletions
- work on article on namespace/draftspace if possible
- 5 to 10 (ideally) Wikilinked citations from large newspapers and articles
that are in-depth features on or with subject
- Infobox, even if minimally filled in, a shell is helpful
- Authority control (viaf.org
- Commons template if media is available added to external links section
- Discogs, AllMusic etc. templates in external links -- re-inforces
Recommend with new page creation that editor asks other experienced editors
to look at stub before making public. Also multiple editors working on a
page is ideal
Oftentimes it's the fact that the article isn't developed to the best of
its potential versus notability that is the culprit with speedy deletions.
We run into these a lot at the editathons here in NYC, and it's very
frustrating. Sorry you had to deal with this but glad to see it seems to be
up there okay now.
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
I think the article was most likely deleted for
being a "sub-stub"
, 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
> 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.
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l mailing list