|
Speedy deletion of Denys Spittle
edit
A tag has been placed on Denys Spittle 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 a person or group of people, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag, because I feel that the article makes some claims of notability. However, please could you have a read at our notabiliy guidelines, WP:N and WP:BIO and see if you can find some independent sourses about him to reference in the article; otherwise it's likely that it will be deleted anyway. If I can help in any way, drop a note to my talk page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Denys Spittle
edit
Denys Spittle, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Denys Spittle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denys Spittle and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Denys Spittle during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Mayalld 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. If you'd like to comment on the deletion discussion - whihc you're welcome, nay encouraged, to do, it's better to do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denys Spittle than on the article's talk page. Remember, when posting to a discussion (as opposed to editing an article), it's a good idea to sign your posts by putting four tildes after it like so - ~~~~. In case you haven't worked out how they work, AfD discussions last at least five days, to give you or any other interested editors time to improve the article or establish notability. Finally, remember that sources don't have to be available online - scholarly books or journale works which refer to him or his work will do. Wish I could be more help - I agree with you that Wikipedia should be a good tool for learning about people who otherwise have little online presence, but as it's not my area of expertise I can't really say just how important he is. Also, have a look at WP:PROF, the guideline for academics, and see how well you think he fits that. Hope this helps. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
non carborundum!
editJust though I'd drop you a note to say don't let the fact that Denys Spittle was nominated for deletion get you down. I for one think it's great that you're taking the time to write articles which aren't about cartoon characters, or other things which I could easily have found out about in two minutes via this site anyway. The AfD is likely to stay open for a few more days (it's supposed to be five, but there's usually a bit of a backlog in closing them), but the way it looks now the article is more or less certain to be kept, so don't let it worry you - the right result will come eventually.
New page patrol is supposed to be as much about improving needy pages and giving advice to new editors as marking the articles writen by friends of gays for deletion; unfortunately there are always a few overzealous people who will tag almost any short, badly formatted article for deletion as soon as it's created, rather than give at chance to improve, or better still have a go at improving it themselves. There are a couple of ways to get round this: you can use the {{underconstruction}} tag to mark it as a work in progress, or better still you can work on it in your userspace first until it looks like a fairly finished work. I have a page User:Iain99/draft which I use for working on articles until they're presentable enough to put in article space; you can create a similar one for yourself if you like by going to User:Kirkdale/Drafts, and working on articles there until you've got a few references added and the formatting looking good. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Iain99 Thanks for the comments and help, i think i'm getting the hang of it Kirkdale 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Balsham, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It was an an edit to an erroneous comment that Jim Daniels began plough monday. The re-emergence of plough monday in balsham was published in the 'balsham review' in circa 1968 naming the founders. As I say I was just putting the record straight. I fail to see how one can mention the traditions at all since many of these rural traditions are not published in scholarly papers, why indeed should they be, since the goings-on of rural communities is (lets face it) not of concern to the world at large. But the point is that the present charitable plough monday is not a tradition going back hundreds of years but one which emerged recently due to an appeal to mend the village church...Kirkdale (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)