Tombeverage

Welcome!

Hello, Tombeverage, 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 Andrew Novell, 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:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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! Drm310 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Andrew Novell 2015.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andrew Novell 2015.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Novell

Please refer to WP:ELOFFICIAL - Wikipedia aims to minimize the number of external links in articles. Since there is a link to his IMDb profile from his official website, there is no need for one in the article.

I have also restored the {{more footnotes}} tag as it is reasonable to expect multiple sources for a biography of a living person. I've also stubbed the article, since it's too short presently to provide encyclopedic coverage but has potential for expansion.

On a more general note, please make use of the edit summary field whenever you make a change, so that other editors can see the reasons why you did it. Explaining your edits shows that you are making your edits in good faith. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could suggest exactly what sources for an actor to cite other than IMDB listing? Thank you for taking an interest in this page. --Tombeverage (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. WP:IRS and specifically WP:BLPSOURCES apply. You might also take some time to review whether WP:BIO applies to Andrew Novell. If things seem unclear, ask. Took me a few years to get the hang of the basics. ;) 85.178.209.27 (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Citing the IMBb

Please refer to Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Much of the IMDb's content is user-generated with minimal editorial control, and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source except for certain types of content. --Drm310 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So if not IMDB can you suggest another reliable source? Many thanks again. --Tombeverage (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reputable websites, newspapers and magazines (online or print) are considered the most reliable sources. I have none to suggest offhand, but any source with an established reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight will be accepted - see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

Another minor note - when adding to a discussion thread, use a colon (:) to indent your comments. Indent one level more than the last comment, and that will keep the discussion neatly sorted and easier to read. --Drm310 (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The acorn paradox

Hello, Tombeverage. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, The acorn paradox, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Human3015^TALK  01:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The acorn paradox

The article The acorn paradox has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence that this term is recognized. No WP:RS - tumblr is not a source

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. Gbawden (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The acorn paradox

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 The acorn paradox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew Novell

The article Andrew Novell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails all of WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:CREATIVE

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. 85.178.217.107 (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the proposed deletion of this article. Mr Novell has appeared in a number of films and has published a novel series widely available. There and numerous example on wikipedia of subjects what have far less notoriety and whose pages are not being given this level of scrutiny. Tombeverage (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The novel series so far consists of a single book published a few months ago, and has not yet received any kind of professional review. Please note that in order to merit a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, a topic needs to be notable. Can you show that Mr. Novell's vita satisfies the requirements in any one of the guidelines listed above? So far as I can determine, it currently fails all of them.

Concerning the "subjects what have far less notoriety", please feel free to list a few or all of them, and I'll gladly review them. Wikipedia is a work in progress, these things happen.

I understand that it is frustrating to have your first efforts here put up for deletion, but these rules have evolved over the past fifteen years, and enjoy broad community support. Maybe you can publish this biography in another venue? Maybe Mr. Novell would like to host it? 85.178.217.32 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

As far as I understand, all that is required for a biographical reference is the citing of one verifiable citation of the subject's contribution to a subject or field. This was originally considered adequate when the page was first created. The reference is . Could someone someone else please review this. The above contributor has only contributed to my page. Tombeverage (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you discuss this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Novell, lest the deletion debate proceeds without your input. Also, you'll find a wider audience there.

"originally considered adequate" I submit it was either not checked, or was given the benefit of doubt.

"above contributor has only contributed to my page" Don't let the fact that I'm currently editing anonymously fool you. 85.178.217.32 (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Nomination of Andrew Novell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andrew Novell 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/Andrew Novell 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. Huon (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tombeverage: As suggested above, please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Novell to get the input of other editors. 85.178.217.32 (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The acorn paradox for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The acorn paradox 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/The acorn paradox 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. 85.178.217.32 (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)