RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains
Welcome
edit
|
Speedy deletion nomination of Kalev Leetaru
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Kalev Leetaru 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, 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.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mtking (edits) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Deletion
edit"Not willing to invest time into this article unless "speedy deletion" tag is removed. Time is valuable. User:Mtking see Wikipedia:BITE - adding a "speedy deletion" tag after only ONE minute from the creation of the article might not be a good practice. Consider giving users some breathing space to gather information and document it properly on the history tab (rather than creating it privately in a sandbox)." OK. One minute is a little soon. But we don't delete them that fast (except for attacks, hoaxes and copyright violations...). Can I suggest that rather than build the article in mainspace, it is a better idea to do it in your userspace? I would also point out that, while we try to help when help is needed, if a user says they are not prepared to continue with an article unless it is untagged we will take it that the user isn't all that bothered about saving the article. As the article stood, it was only referenced to a personal site, and did not show significance for the subject that matched the requirements of WP:BIO (the lack of referencing compliant with WP:RS not helping either. Not every person can have an article here. (Actually, some that do don't want them now that they have them...) One may be a good person, doing a good job, but not be notable in Wikipedia's eyes. Peridon (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good Morning Peridon, I'm pleased to see a Wikipedia Administrator acknowledge that "One minute is a little soon". My explanation seems, perhaps, a bit misconstrued. I'm by no means giving an ultimatum here. My issue with building this article in user-space is that it fails to display the history of the article, which in my opinion, is equally important as the article itself. Building an article step by step allows other editors to then see where references were added, how content was organized, etc. User-space is (to my understanding) more suited for div layouts and experimentation and things of that nature. In this case, even a very quick Google search will display evidence of WP:BIO and a quick news search WP:RS too – Please understand, I have absolutely no issues with having an article deleted if these requirements aren’t meet - My issue is with the recklessness of adding a speedy deletion tag (after less then a minute) and without first investigating this with a simple search. I have a deep appreciation for the Wikipedia editors who clean and maintain this website and perhaps its just that we have a philosophical disagreement on how "speedy deletions" should be administered. I'm aware of notability issues and again, I don't have a problem with an article being deleted if these requirements aren’t met. The issue is being tagged immediately after creating the article without being given the chance to build upon it. I was waiting for a response from an administrator before continuing, because again time is valuable - for me, for you, for everybody. If after I source it your still not satisfied with the article then by all means delete it. (but I notice its already been deleted) Thanks for your feedback and for listening to my concerns. All the best, RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The history of an article can be preserved easily by 'moving' the userspace article rather than copying and pasting. C&P loses the history - moving is a Wikipedia way of saying 'rename'. Very often, as I found out when patrolling New Accounts edits, placing a tag results in a burst of activity on the part of an article creator, and the survival of the article. If you wish to try the article again, do it in userspace headed DRAFT and when you're happy with it, ask someone for advice. (Not me - get someone new to look at the article with fresh eyes.) Most admins and regular editors will be willing to give an opinion and advice. You can tell admins because they are labelled on their userpages, and regular editors will have talkpages with plenty of communication. You can judge whether they are real contributors or damn nuisances by a quick look at the correspondence...) Personally, on the basis of the article's info I wouldn't hold out much hope. There might be more I haven't seen about the subject. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciated your response Peridon, I was completely unaware you could move the history – that's a really important feature to be aware of so thanks for bringing that to my attention. However - the main drawback to this would be that other editors can't participate with its creation - perhaps not applicable to this particular article but I'm still discussing how "speedy deletions" should best be administered. Furthermore, User:Mtking doesn’t seem to be respecting Wikipedia:BITE - although in my case I'm not entirely new (just my user account is new, I've been editing for a few months) in other users who actually are new, its discouraging to add a tag so fast. A quick Google archive search results in - BBC News, techNews, Courier, Washington Post, etc - those are good sources and that's just after a 10 second search. I hope I don't come across difficult here, I'm genuinely concerned with how Wikipedia functions and hope to come to a deeper understanding over time. I hope to see a more friendly approach for new editors but I suspect this is difficult for long time administrators and editors because they take so much heat and hatred from people, and perhaps become less patient. I think we must both agree that we want to encourage new editors to participate and contribute to Wikipedia rather then chase them away. Anyway, aside from the notability of this article, if your interested in technology or computer science or even Wikipedia, why not check out some video clips of Kalev on YouTube when you have a free moment over the next few days. Its fascinating research IMHO. Thank you kindly for your feedback. RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't have Flash on this machine. I keep getting invited to download it on various websites, but I don't want to. I sometimes send a snotty message to the webmaster pointing out that they are losing visitors (when there is no real need for video, that is - why on Earth have Flash on something that is really a click button?). Peridon (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciated your response Peridon, I was completely unaware you could move the history – that's a really important feature to be aware of so thanks for bringing that to my attention. However - the main drawback to this would be that other editors can't participate with its creation - perhaps not applicable to this particular article but I'm still discussing how "speedy deletions" should best be administered. Furthermore, User:Mtking doesn’t seem to be respecting Wikipedia:BITE - although in my case I'm not entirely new (just my user account is new, I've been editing for a few months) in other users who actually are new, its discouraging to add a tag so fast. A quick Google archive search results in - BBC News, techNews, Courier, Washington Post, etc - those are good sources and that's just after a 10 second search. I hope I don't come across difficult here, I'm genuinely concerned with how Wikipedia functions and hope to come to a deeper understanding over time. I hope to see a more friendly approach for new editors but I suspect this is difficult for long time administrators and editors because they take so much heat and hatred from people, and perhaps become less patient. I think we must both agree that we want to encourage new editors to participate and contribute to Wikipedia rather then chase them away. Anyway, aside from the notability of this article, if your interested in technology or computer science or even Wikipedia, why not check out some video clips of Kalev on YouTube when you have a free moment over the next few days. Its fascinating research IMHO. Thank you kindly for your feedback. RazorBrainsAndWisdomStains (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- The history of an article can be preserved easily by 'moving' the userspace article rather than copying and pasting. C&P loses the history - moving is a Wikipedia way of saying 'rename'. Very often, as I found out when patrolling New Accounts edits, placing a tag results in a burst of activity on the part of an article creator, and the survival of the article. If you wish to try the article again, do it in userspace headed DRAFT and when you're happy with it, ask someone for advice. (Not me - get someone new to look at the article with fresh eyes.) Most admins and regular editors will be willing to give an opinion and advice. You can tell admins because they are labelled on their userpages, and regular editors will have talkpages with plenty of communication. You can judge whether they are real contributors or damn nuisances by a quick look at the correspondence...) Personally, on the basis of the article's info I wouldn't hold out much hope. There might be more I haven't seen about the subject. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)