User talk:Jeeper72
Welcome
[edit]
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Putney Student Travel
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Putney Student Travel 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Putney Student Travel
[edit]A tag has been placed on Putney Student Travel 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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 organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Re your message: I deleted the original article that you created because you did not establish why the company is notable enough for inclusion as you included no references from reliable sources about the company. As for your recreated copy made with the Article Wizard, you will have to ask Kimchi.sg (talk · contribs) about that as they did the second deletion. While I see that you did include a reference to the New York Times article in the recreated article, the New York Times article was not about Putney Student Travel, but about student travel in general. A better reference would be to articles that focus solely on the company itself instead of the general service it provides. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can't add more citations to a deleted article. And the New York Times article discussed the company quite extensively. It was deleted supposedly because there was no assertion of notability, which seems a bit preposterous. I don't think there are many companies in existence for 60 years that offer that kind of touring experience that aren't notable, and there are numemours book and newspaper sources discussing their offerings, as well as noting that family business includes the current Democratic nominee for Vermont governor. This seems a very strange approach to collaboratively building articles and it would have been nice to have been shown more collegiality and courtesy. Is there a venue to review these ill-considered deletion decisions? Jeeper72 (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- Being an company in existence for 60 years does not infer notability. Notability is conferred by the company being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. You only provided a single reference, the New York Times article, which as I said in my previous message, was not a very good reference. I disagree that the company was covered extensively in it. The article could be summed up with "Putney offers students a way to travel". There was nothing regarding it being in existence for 60 years or any relation to the Democratic nominee for Vermont governor. Speaking of which, you did not include that information in the article so that could not be used to establish its notability since that information wasn't known at the time of deletion. As for reviewing a deletion decision, normal practice is to ask the deleting admins about an undeletion or, failing that, requesting a deletion review. I still do not think that the article with the single New York Times meets the notability guidelines, but if you could include these numerous other references, perhaps it will meet the notability guidelines. If you wish, I can restore the article into your user space so that you can work on it. If you want it restored into your user space, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will restore it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. a userspace version of the most recent version would be fine. Then you could review it before it's fully restored and ensure it meets your high standards. I disagree with you about the NYT coverage which discusses their offerings in some detail. It's notable for the same reason schools and National Outdoor Leadership School, and Outward Bound are notable. And the person who creates an article isn't the only one who can look for sources. I can't add a source about the family that runs it and the Democratic nominee because the article was speedy deleted so soon after being created. If you had communicated your concerns here I would have been happy to have addressed them and that would have been a lot more helpful and courteous. I hope you'll consider that approach going forward. Jeeper72 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kimchi.sg restored the article for you at User:Jeeper72/Putney Student Travel. While it is true that others may look for sources, it is up to the initial article creator to establish the subject's notability, not the deleting admins. As noted to you by Kimchi.sg, you are welcome to continue to work on the article and move the article back into main space when you believe it is complete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Okay. But the policy page does say "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." Jeeper72 (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Kimchi.sg restored the article for you at User:Jeeper72/Putney Student Travel. While it is true that others may look for sources, it is up to the initial article creator to establish the subject's notability, not the deleting admins. As noted to you by Kimchi.sg, you are welcome to continue to work on the article and move the article back into main space when you believe it is complete. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. a userspace version of the most recent version would be fine. Then you could review it before it's fully restored and ensure it meets your high standards. I disagree with you about the NYT coverage which discusses their offerings in some detail. It's notable for the same reason schools and National Outdoor Leadership School, and Outward Bound are notable. And the person who creates an article isn't the only one who can look for sources. I can't add a source about the family that runs it and the Democratic nominee because the article was speedy deleted so soon after being created. If you had communicated your concerns here I would have been happy to have addressed them and that would have been a lot more helpful and courteous. I hope you'll consider that approach going forward. Jeeper72 (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Being an company in existence for 60 years does not infer notability. Notability is conferred by the company being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. You only provided a single reference, the New York Times article, which as I said in my previous message, was not a very good reference. I disagree that the company was covered extensively in it. The article could be summed up with "Putney offers students a way to travel". There was nothing regarding it being in existence for 60 years or any relation to the Democratic nominee for Vermont governor. Speaking of which, you did not include that information in the article so that could not be used to establish its notability since that information wasn't known at the time of deletion. As for reviewing a deletion decision, normal practice is to ask the deleting admins about an undeletion or, failing that, requesting a deletion review. I still do not think that the article with the single New York Times meets the notability guidelines, but if you could include these numerous other references, perhaps it will meet the notability guidelines. If you wish, I can restore the article into your user space so that you can work on it. If you want it restored into your user space, please leave me a note on my talk page and I will restore it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Blocked as a sock puppet
[edit]
You may contest this block by adding the text
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.As 
Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)