Omandra
Omandra, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Omandra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Wan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Wan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of article edit
Hi Boleyn, I just logged in to Wikipedia and found a message pointing to a deletion of an article I initiated: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_Wan. I get that the decision was to delete it, and I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to register why I thought the article merited inclusion. It is true that not every councilor should be included in Wikipedia, and I understand that not every "first" should be included either, but I disagree with the assertion that the person in question is not notable. 1) Oakland is a major city. It is underrated, but it is. 2) The councilor in question brought the first gay pride celebration in the city in the late 1990's, as noted by a primary source. That's not notable these days, people take that for granted, but back then, for a city in the San Francisco Bay Area, I think that it is. 3) I felt the article was well-written enough and sourced enough to ensure the other biographical references are substantiated (e.g., year of graduation, etc). So I am disappointed that it was deleted, rather than say re-written; but I will defer to the decision; though I would appeal to re-instating it if granted the chance. Given the list of Oakland councilors currently extant, and the standard by which "notability" is granted for "non-notable" offices, and that I wrote the article based on these, I would not count most of these folks to have biographical articles in Wikipedia (except say, the current and past mayors of Oakland). But they are still there. So I'm perplexed by the standard Omandra (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Omandra, thanks for messaging me. It's frustrating when you take a wikibreak and miss a discussion like this. I think the discussion reflected your point 1), a city the size of Oakland might have notable councillors whereas smaller places almost definitely wouldn't, but it is not an automatic pass by any means and 2) would only be notable if it met WP:GNG, and the coverage was found to be quite far off meeting that. There are many other articles you'll come across that should probably be substantially improved or deleted too, unfortunately there's a huge backlog to be looked at. You have options: you could contact the closing admin and ask if they can re-create the old article at Draft:Danny Wan, where you could work on it and then submit it via WP:AFC, making clear that it was previously deleted. You would need to find a lot more coverage than there was originally though. Good luck! Boleyn (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the options presented. I did quite a bit of digging for that article, as I do try to research and write comprehensively for any topic, especially bios, and whatever has been cited is coverage for that individual and his narrative (which frankly, as you alluded to, is more than I could say for other articles). I'll keep those options in mind in the future. All the best, Omandra (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)