PSQ

Speedy deletion of Seattle Knights

A tag has been placed on Seattle Knights 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 club, 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 indicate 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 guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Woland (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Seattle Knights

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Article meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Please note that I did not nominate this article for deletion. In fact, I think it should stay at Wikipedia providing a few criteria are met:

• You need to prove the subject is notable.
• Generally that means the subject of the article has been the subject of third-party articles and reviews.
• Some of the statements in your article could support notability, especially if they did stuntwork for The Postman.
• But your reference to that statement points back to the Wikipedia article on The Postman, not any proof that the Seattle Knights were involved in the movie.
• You need a reference from a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, etc.) that says they were involved with the movie. That would be your reference.
• I'm willing to help you improve this article, but I want to make sure you're going to provide the required sources.  :)

Good luck, and welcome to WP! Livitup (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you so much Livitup!! I will contact the SK again and ask for that proof. What about the history channel link? They were the "knights in shining armour" on that educational show. Is that correctly done? I know there has been a lot of coverage in the seattle times, but without the group getting me the links, I am stuck in the water. Also, asking for help to make it less like an advertisement. Contacting writers. (I volunteered as PR for Girl Scouts and, unfortunately, that training shows. (I also love the Knight shows, and, not objective enough - BUT WORKING ON IT!!) PSQ (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) I didn't watch the history channel video myself, but I imagine it's problem will be the same as the Postman link... It's a link to the show itself, not to any evidence that the Seattle Knights had anything to do with the show. If the History Channel documented the Seattle Knights' participation somewhere, that would be proof to back up your statement. All that link does is prove there was a show. (You can disregard all this if the show actually highlights the Seattle Knights'—as I said, I didn't watch it.)

I'll take a pass through the article shortly and see if I can help make it look less like an ad, and more like encyclopedic content.

Remember, an encyclopedia should collect knowledge, not create it. As-is right now, the article looks like original research, which is a big no-no. :)

P.S... when a user has the {{Usertalkback}} template, as I (and I see now you) do, the correct way to respond is to put {{Talkback|USERNAME on the other person's talk page, where you substitute your username for USERNAME. So to notify me, you would put {{Talkback|PSQ}} on my page.  :) Don't worry, you'll get the hang of it. :) Livitup (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again!!!! I hope to get this right!! Frantically e-mailing for more help, too :) BUT YOUR HELP WOULD BE THE VERY BEST!!!! Hopefully, looking through your edits will help me with any future contributions!! RE: the history channel. If you go to the section on Medieval armor, it names the Seattle Knights. I am trying to get it to play, so I can tell you exactly what minute/second to go to, but our internet at work is very flakey. If I get it down to the second, I will let you know. THANKS FOR ALL YOUR HELP!!!!!! I PROMISE TO GET BETTER AT THIS! PSQ (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Livitup, I have been studying the revises other people have done and I think I am getting it. I feel I should link for a few of the other words, (i.e. stage combat, jousting). I also feel I should say something about the academy, and perhaps split things up more, but I want to see how others are revising, so I don't write too fluffy. EVERYONE, FEEL FREE TO CHANGE THE WRITING TO BE MORE ENCYCLOPEDIC!! This is harder than I thought it would be. I have pictures coming from the official SK photographer, and as soon as I get them, I will upload them to wikicommons. I looked at the video link for history channel, and they are just clips. They verbally thank the Seattle Knights on the real video, so I referenced a cast thank you page on TV. com. The director of the SK has not e-mailed me yet about The Postman proof, but they are off to a show in Richland this weekend. Anyway, thanks for all of your help!!!!!!! PSQ (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're either going to love me, or hate me, but take a look at the page now. I think it should pass the deletion vote now with no problems (I'm going to go change my vote next). Something to read, in your continuing WikiEducation is WP:PEACOCK. Compare the article before I rewrote it, and the way it is now, with that guideline in mind and I think you'll get it.  :) Let me know what you think. :) Livitup (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. This, of course, doesn't mean the article is "finished." It can use a lot more expanding, which I think I've put you on the right path to do.  :) Livitup (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

---

LIVITUP. I LOVE YOU!!! :) Will read the page you referenced, and try to work in more info. (RE: training, perhaps I should also add a "horse power" section), and then I need to add pictures. (I might ask for help there. Although I see how to upload the pictures, I am still sorting through the pages to see how to insert them). I am soooooo grateful to you!! I was about to give up on this stuff until you came along. PSQ (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks again!!

Thank me after your AfD is closed with a result of Keep! :) Have fun, and never give up. Livitup (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you can thank me. :) Congratulations! Livitup (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seattle Knights and wikify tag

Hi, thanks for your message regarding this article. I am afraid however that I am unwilling to personally remove the wikify tag from the article. Having such a cleanup tag on an article, or not, is an editorial decision which anybody, including yourself, can make if they believe the issue that prompted the tag being added has been addressed. An admin, such as myself, is no different to any other editor in making such editorial decisions.

Personally looking at the article I think some more appropriate wikilinks should be added to the article. (such as for jousting and some of the places mentioned further down in the article) A guide to this can be found at Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

Once you feel the article is appropriately wikified, be bold and remove the tag yourself. If someone disagrees they will no doubt re add the tag and you can discuss the issue between yourselves either on the article talk page or on your user talk pages to reach agreement on what still needs doing.

Hope this is helpful. Davewild (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)