User talk:Bananamilkshakemaker

Welcome!

Hello, Bananamilkshakemaker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Daniel Maier

The article Daniel Maier has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability at WP:CREATIVE; none of the current independent sources constitute significant coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Exok (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel Maier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Maier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Maier until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Exok (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bananamilkshakemaker. I'm responding here to the comment you've made at [[1]] because I think that space is used more as a poll of user opinion, rather than to discuss or answer concerns with your article, Daniel Maier. For me, Maier appears to be a contributor, rather than an originator and I'm not convinced any of the sources you've found indicate he has a profile in his own right that justifies inclusion here. The sources should also be tied to particular assertions made in the article, rather than being listed all together at the end. Now you've stated you're not Maier and there's no conflict of interest, that changes things and I'm glad to hear it. I'm sure the article will survive the debate if only because of Maier's pieces in the Guardian, but in my opinion there should be more profile material about him in reliable sources to confirm the biographical data, rather than just a series of websites that state he has worked on certain programmes. Anyway, I hope you won't take the debate personally. If it has any effect, it will most likely improve what you've started. Exok (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for responding so considerately and I'm sorry if I sounded annoyed, but it's really frustrating that an article I've worked hard on and sourced well is up for deletion when there's so much rubbish on Wikipedia. I'll see if there are any interviews with him anywhere to add biographical detail. Should I move what I posted at [[2]]? If that's not the right place, where can I respond to the arguments in favour of deletion? Sorry, my contributions to Wikipedia tend to be with regard to people whose work I'm curious about, rather than being a fully-fledged member of the Wikipedia editing community so I'm not good at all the admin side. Bananamilkshakemaker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Bananamilkshakemaker[reply]

AfD

AfD is sort of like draconian traffic court. Lots of people might be speeding, but if you're the one getting pulled over and hauled there over an article, all you can do is fight like hell to win the case, because there are only two verdicts: getting off scot free or the death penalty. It ultimately devolves to finding two or better three independent published sources that meet muster.

I will say that you can ask the closing nominator that the material be "userfied," made part of your user page that's invisible to an outsider searching Wikipedia "mainspace." Then you can save the material and continue tacking on new information from new sources as it becomes available.

Another thing you might consider doing is contacting the subject of the biography and seeing if he has any suggestions where to find published biographical bits. Sometimes people keep scrapbooks and the local press works just as well as national press in terms of satisfying AfD "verifiability" needs. If you're stumped, you might try that.

The AfD is already in the second week, so you'll need to work fast. Good luck! —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting a keep outcome for Daniel Maier and thank you for your being so civil and constructive during the debate. I hope you feel that some of the trouble you've been put to was worth it to have your work properly considered by other editors. Exok (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]