User talk:Star Mississippi/Archives/2009/August

Ace volleyball

Hi Star,

I started work on a Ace rules and definitions page yesterday and noticed it was bookmarked for deletion. I have a few questions (being a new wikipedia editor...

On categorization, should this entry be under sports or drinking games?

Also, I see that you say this is not for "things made up one day". Does that mean entries that are created in one day, should they be created over the course of several days? Or does this mean to say that the game of "Ace" was recently made up? If this is the case, I can assure you that if you ask anyone familiar with the Southern California beach volleyball scene that Ace is a very real variation of the sport of volleyball, and is probably a 20+ year old staple.

There is a lack of internet documentation of variations of rules, which I am attempting to help correct by creating a wikipedia entry, ect. If you are on facebook, there is also a fan page with over 600 people at last count, www.facebook.com/acevolleyball

Any help to legitimize this entry (and keep it from being deleted!) would be much appreciated!

Thanks! Brianrodine (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)brianrodine

Hi Brian and thanks for your note. However if there's a lack of internet documentation, the game probably fails our notability guidelines, which means it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Unfortunately Facebook is not considered a reliable source. I'm going to list the article for a deletion discussion where others in the community will weight in on the subject as I will be offline. Thanks

HOW DO I COMMENT ON THIS MATTER?? ACE IS ABSOLUTELY A LEGITIMATE GAME!

StarM 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not one of "legitimacy" (however you define that); but rather one of notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Star

It's possible you just may become a city! [1] - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 09:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Harbor Defense Museum

I appreciate your concern, but I did not remove any sources on the article in question. If you look at the article, you'll see that all the reference numbers are still there. All I did, was consolidate several references to the same source, and reduce them to one line in the References section that is used multiple times. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SPCA of Texas page redirect

Regarding the article on the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I'd like to respectfully offer that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is an independently notable subject for an article and should not be redirected to the general SPCA article because the article

- discusses what separates and differentiates the SPCA of Texas from other groups of the type due to the different details about the group

- has multiple third-party sources to back up the article that are reliable

- includes significant coverage of the topic

Despite the previous link to the ASPCA article (which the SPCA of Texas is definitely separate and separately notable from) and/or a previous link to the general SPCA article, I also respectfully offer that this article is notable in its own right because of the above reasons.

Would you be able to help make the SPCA of Texas article better by assisting finding more sources for it or by suggesting revisions that would further help the article be better?

Thank you for your consideration. Auroraleighm (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:ORG especially non commercial organizations. The information you've provided does not establish notability. Simple existence does not indicate notability and many of the sources were not independent, nor where they non-local. Suggest you work on it in your sandbox so that you have time to create it and find sources, if they exist. Please also consider whether you have a coi when writing about this article. Thanks. StarM