Talk:Ted Staunton

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

speedy keep, February 2, 2021, see discussion.
delete, August 16, 2016, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

CSD

This article is a re-creation of a page deleted via AfD. While the discussion took place some time ago, the article is a BLP sourced only from non-reliable sources and non-independent sources, which means the issues raised in the discussion have not been rectified. Modussiccandi (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the content of the previous page was. I wrote the material myself, except for quoted sections. I cited many things. Would archives of cited sources qualify as more reliable? There are numerous international-reach news papers lately that have been changing their URLs, as such, would that qualify them, where the links become naturally dead, as non-reliable? I do my due diligence to read as much as I can in the guidance on publishing and editing, and this was my first attempt, it feels like a rug being yanked out from my feet. Tomacpace (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

I have no active connection to this author, this is not written as an advertorial whether or not it sounds like it is; I was reading the "be bold" philosophy of Wikipedia entries previous to submitting this. The page was posted as a contribution to widely-published Canadian authors. Previously I have modified the Wikipedia page for Canadian writers, adding three very widely published authors.

I have attempted to find the previously deleted page, but was not able to find any relevant material, so as to contend against a message effectively "this is nearly identical to a past deleted article". How? I crafted this myself, based on information (which yet is on numerous sites, biographical and an attempt (incomplete) to produce an encyclopedic entry.

To say it is "not notable" based on relatively lacking news paper reviews... 'media', speaks more to the low-self-promoting nature of the individual, and diversified exposure (ie teaching through a post-secondary college in Toronto). The distribution is nation-wide and for decades, with many dozens of published books. If one author's books are distributed widely across Canada in a large amount of public schools and libraries, and direct market through a school book publisher, meanwhile not in mass media, that should not inherently count as 'not notable', in my opinion.

Speedy deletion criteria: Criteria for speedy deletion: Articles, images, categories etc. may be "speedily deleted" if they clearly fall within certain categories, which generally boil down to pages lacking content, or disruptive pages. Anything potentially controversial should go through the deletion process instead.. I provided books, reviews (granted the reviews do sound advertorial but that is not the intent. I have intention to further edit the page, but why should I at this point unless the deletion tag is removed?)

The guidelines are understandable but ought there be some degree of flexibility? I would naturally presumably there is flexibility (I presume good faith in the speedy deletion request, likewise, I expect my reasons here to be taken seriously). As mentioned above, I previously read, and am exercising the wikipedia "be bold", and exercising the "contest deletion", on a topic that is personally relevant to me and many Canadians. I have interviewed the author 20 years ago while I was in public school, so I know his works in context and have exposure to the person as a publishing professional. Likewise, I have personal knowledge and history of interaction with numerous other Canadian authors.

A deletion here, where the previous, now non-extant content is not reviewable for the sake of wikipedia contributor learning and differentiation, on specific grounds which cannot be contested effectively, on a topic that is relevant to many thousands of people, where nothing exists and I've put quality time into this as a first pass, would be very disempowering.

--Tomacpace (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content updated

I had intended to update this at some point on a scheduled basis, but I've updated it now due to this threat of deletion. Tomacpace (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to add book review excerpts from Kirkus, Publishers, and the like and cite them. Any magazine or newspaper articles or interviews with/about him too. It should be apparently to anyone looking into him that he passes notability standards. Apparently that did not happen here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some: