User talk:MRossV

Welcome!

Hello, MRossV, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Firebug (Dinghy), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DMacks (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Firebug (Dinghy)

The article Firebug (Dinghy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Overly promotional (content problem) but also no real notability that I see (topic problem).

While all constructive 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. DMacks (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Firebug (Dinghy)

The above entry has been proposed for deletion. It is suggested that it is too promotional and of marginal relevance.

I would greatly appreciate assistance in meeting the objections raised.

I believe the subject is relevant because:

The design is the work of a highly significant boat designer. John Spencer (boat designer)
Over 1,000 of these boats have been built as part of a continuing programme.
Examples of the Firebug have been built in over 30 countries, often in places where resources for recreation are limited.
The class has been reported in multiple boating magazines. Watercraft (Highly respected UK publication), Wooden Boat (High circulation USA publication), Afloat (Australia and New Zealand) and Australian Amateur Boat Builder.
The large scale construction of boats at home was the foundation of mass dinghy sailing post World War 2. This activity has been greatly reduced with the availability of fiberglass craft, but the Firebug represents a significant number of people and community groups reverting to the earlier model.

Surely the above makes the Firebug relevant? - I make the comparison with the Jacksnipe dinghy, only about 30 built more than 40 years ago. Jacksnipe - No problem with that page!

Promotional?

All the statements in the page are factual.

Objectivity

I built and still sail a Firebug, clearly I support the case for the promotion of this class/activity. To witness a youth offered a job just on the strength of their demonstration of commitment made by building his own boat, is very impressive. Trouble is, who will speak for any such a group, if not one of their own?

On the other hand, I am a qualified boat builder, I have sailed for almost 60 years and owned many different (all larger) craft. So I am better placed to comment on the craft than a relative sailing/boat building novice.

MRossV (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable third-party sources have reported about the subject, and coverage in such sources is how Wikipedia measures notability. So of your above points, only no. 4 is relevant to the question of notability. As it stands, it's entirely unclear which parts of the article's content are based on the lone third-party source mentioned in the article, and the informaation about the source is itself rather vague. The author, title, and page numbers of the Watercraft Magazine article would help. Of course it would also help if that article were cited for facts about the Firebug.

Regarding the promotion problems, I'd say that "A key to the success of the Firebug" is the most obviously inappropriate phrase. How was that success measured? Surely not by the number built, which is miniscule compared to many similar designs. Huon (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, MRossV. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bedenham Pier Explosion (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Was the explosion described in British newspapers? If so, quote and cite them.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bedenham Pier Explosion and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bedenham Pier Explosion, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! MRossV, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bedenham Pier Explosion concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bedenham Pier Explosion, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]