User talk:Seceditman
Speedy deletion of PaulDotCom Security Weekly
[edit]
A tag has been placed on PaulDotCom Security Weekly 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 biographies.
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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of PaulDotCom Security Weekly
[edit]I have nominated PaulDotCom Security Weekly, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaulDotCom Security Weekly. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Paeg Deletion (PaulDotCom Security Weekly)
[edit]Hi Stifle,
I just noticed you deleted the PaulDotCom Security Weekly page for not being notable enough. The information posted in the initial page was only the start, as there is definitely more to be put on there. I definitely feel it is relevant as it is one of the most popular security podcasts out there, and the team is involved in many interesting projects. If anything it is just as relevant/notable as Security Now!, another security podcast. So I don't see why my page would be deleted, when the other has been accepted. I'd appreciate it if we could restore this page, as it was highly relevant to people in the security industry. Thanks in advance. Seceditman (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message.
- PaulDotCom Security Weekly was deleted per item 7 under Articles on our criteria for speedy deletion, namely that it was an article about web content which did not explain how it was significant or important.
- Please note that per our policy on ownership of articles, the article is not your page.
- You can feel free to recreate the page, but you must explain what makes the podcast notable, and include citations from reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy.
- Alternatively if you believe I have acted inappropriately in deleting this page you may file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. Just for clarification, by 'my page' I simply meant the page I created. I have no delusions of ownership whatsoever ;) I do understand your points, and the wikipedia criteria, but as I said there IS significant information missing that I was not able to post all in one go (time consuming). Furthermore the page does (and will) contain information that is quite relevant to those in the security industry. I wouldn't say you've acted inappropriately, as I see your points, but I feel the article will qualify as a valid page. Would you recommend re-submitting the page? Or requesting a review? Thanks again for your time. Seceditman (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you need time to put the page together then your best option is to create a user subpage where you can assemble the article in peace before using the Move option to place it at its new title. It'll still need citations from reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy. If you like, I can transfer the deleted article to such a subpage for you. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd very much appreciate that, and I'll do my best to get it up to scratch. Thanks Stifle! Seceditman (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done, you'll find the article at User:Seceditman/PaulDotCom. Happy editing! Stifle (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'd very much appreciate that, and I'll do my best to get it up to scratch. Thanks Stifle! Seceditman (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you need time to put the page together then your best option is to create a user subpage where you can assemble the article in peace before using the Move option to place it at its new title. It'll still need citations from reliable sources to comply with our verifiability policy. If you like, I can transfer the deleted article to such a subpage for you. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. Just for clarification, by 'my page' I simply meant the page I created. I have no delusions of ownership whatsoever ;) I do understand your points, and the wikipedia criteria, but as I said there IS significant information missing that I was not able to post all in one go (time consuming). Furthermore the page does (and will) contain information that is quite relevant to those in the security industry. I wouldn't say you've acted inappropriately, as I see your points, but I feel the article will qualify as a valid page. Would you recommend re-submitting the page? Or requesting a review? Thanks again for your time. Seceditman (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note regarding PaulDotCom Security Weekly
[edit]In response to your recent AFD and deletion, your article has been slightly modified and included in an external project. It is not a part of Wikipedia, yet does honour the GFDL. Please feel free to leave a message on my user talk page should this not suit you. Best of luck in keeping your contributions on Wikipedia :) Miserablyeverafter (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)