User talk:Frodo3019

Removing tags

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. 98.248.32.178 (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Chris (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well where is the debate? I see one person who wants it deleted, but has not given a valid reason. It seems to be a game with him. I want to hear from other people what harm this article, Tom Sawyer, Avenger is doing. It was a stub that needed to be expanded, so it has recently been expanded. When it was a stub, nobody cared about it. Now that it has meat and substance to it, it is proposed for deletion. I either want a debate, or I want this deletion template removed and for this rogue to go away and be blocked from any further editing on an article he has nothing to do with. --Frodo3019 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is linked at the top of the article in question. The article does seem like it's in better shape now, perhaps the user who nominated it thought that it might be a copyright violation. In any event, just leave the notice there. The week-long discussion will run its course and the results will be applied.

In defense of the anonymous contributor, note that he is working on newpage patrol, and is looking for articles that were created but are unencyclopedic or not salvageable. This is helpful work, and it's reasonable to expect that newpage patrollers will make a mistake or two. (I've done it before myself.) I will contact the anonymous contributor and request a reason for his nomination, since he did not give one.

In the meantime, keep working on the article -- the better quality it is, the better chance it'll be retained. --Chris (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason he provided on the article talk page is a notability concern. If you can find references that challenge them, that will strongly help your case. Otherwise, if you bring the article quality up enough it may not matter. I would strongly suggest finding reliable sources for the content you have added. Articles with strong references are usually kept.

Sorry your introduction to Wikipedia has to be so rough. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. --Chris (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources for what? It's a work of fiction, not non fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodo3019 (talk • contribs)

Reviews of the book, newspaper articles about the book would be a good start. You can read the notability guidelines for books here. Black Kite 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link at the bottom of the article page listing an old news story written about the book, as best I could. Is that good enough? There are no other references to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frodo3019 (talk • contribs)