Help desk
< June 25	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

June 26

What if i want to write an article about a local hero?

Someone known locally but not having newspaper articles or internet sites to use as source information? How would i see to it that the article is not deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.241.102 (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You won't. You must verify every single fact in the article by citing reliable, published sources. These policies are taken especially seriously in biographies of living persons, as unreferenced information can get the Wikimedia Foundation into serious legal trouble. Citing unpublished sources, such as your own knowledge or hearsay, is original research, which is also disallowed. Xenon54 (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can write about anybody on WikiBios. You may also have a City wiki that covers your region. (City wikis tend to accept a much wider range of locally-relevant content than Wikipedia, with fewer persnickety requirements for notability and so on.) If not, you could start one. There may be other wikis that focus on whatever your hero is famous for - just about every type of activity or interest has at least one wiki about it. For example, if your hero is locally famous for composting, you could write about him or her on Appropedia. If you want to get your hero on Wikipedia, a first step would be to persuade some journalists to write about him or her in the mainstream media. If you can't persuade the journalists, you won't persuade Wikipedia's deletionists. --Teratornis (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention that WikiIndex is one place to look for other wikis. Also see WP:ALTOUT. --Teratornis (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: if they are considered a "local hero", I would expect there to be some decent coverage in the local media, if nowhere else! If the local press doesn't want to cover the individual, then I would contend that he can't be much of a "local" hero! If the person lived a while ago, I would still expect there to be coverage. For example, I noticed that a local well-known personality had no article on Wikipedia, so I created William Stanley (inventor) - and although he died over a century ago, I could still find plenty of material to use as sources (OK, I was lucky that he was listed in Dictionary of National Biography - and the local library had a couple of publications!). Check your local newspaper archive (at the library), where coverage should be present -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External Link getting rejected

I'm trying to add an link to Playa Hermosa Artificial Reef Project to the "Artificial Reef" wiki page. http://condofish.com is the site and it's hosted at http://condofish.wordpress.com. It keeps getting rejected by the bot. I'm assuming because it think that this is some blog. This is the official site for the project. How do I add it it's directly relevant to the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.228.79 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL, WP:LINKFARM, and WP:SPAMHOLE. The purpose of the External links section is to act as a temporary holding area for links that editors should ideally work into the article as footnote citations. Also note that Artificial reef is a general topic, of which a particular artificial reef is but one instance. Given the potentially large number of artificial reefs around the world, the Artificial reef article would become unwieldy if its External links section were to exhaustively list every artificial reef. Instead we might have a List of artificial reefs for that (that's a red link because nobody has started such a list yet). We do have a Category:Artificial reefs and a Category:Ships sunk as artificial reefs. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for a comparison of three basic methods for grouping related articles on Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be a navigation template for artificial reefs yet - at least, no such template appears in a few of the artificial reef articles I clicked on. Since there are articles about some other artificial reefs, Playa Hermosa Artificial Reef Project may be notable enough for its own article here. You could request one on Wikipedia:Requested articles. --Teratornis (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the semi-protected banner?

The article Justin Bieber is understandably semi-protected. It also bears the semi-protected notice banner for unestablished editors to see when they hit "view source" (This page is currently semi-protected and can be edited only by..."), with a link to post an edit request on the article's talk page. But... the talk page for Justin Bieber is also semi-protected, and its link to post a request links right back to it. Is there a way to modify the notice to link to Talk:Justin Bieber/nonautoconfirmedtalk, or otherwise remove the semi-protected banner and create a custom one for the page? I understand I'll probably need admin help for this, but tell me the theory (unless some nice admin happens to read this and do it themselves...) Let me know if I made no sense. liquidluck✽talk 02:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. that's not helpful at all. I'm not sure it can be done, I'll just check. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where I can find the default semi-protected edit notice, to create a custom one for that article? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 02:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for it too, and haven't yet found it (still looking). But you can see it if you log out and attempt to edit any semi-protected page. liquidluck✽talk 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I can't remove that one, only add a customised editnotice. What would you like it to say? {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 02:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an editnotice at all; it should be a editmessage, since we can't find an editnotice. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be it. Liquidluck: do you still want the editnotice? I can create it if you like. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 05:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll propose that a new editmessage be created for protected talk pages at the village pump. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected the talk page instead. Prodego ^talk 05:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier! I was thinking of something that simply replaced the link or at least gave anons further directions, but unprotection works just as well. Thanks, everyone! liquidluck✽talk 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Prodego, but have you seen this discussion first? Kayau Voting IS evil 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about it am I supposed to see? Prodego ^talk 03:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone recommend a better tool for filling out cite templates?

I currently use the Wikipedia template filling tool to fill out cite templates. It's a decent tool, but I wish that it had more functionality. For example, it's not intelligent enough to figure out an article's author or date published.[1] Is there a better tool I can use? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki. I don't use it, but it seems to have some of the functionality you're looking for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it doesn't quite have the functionality that I was looking for but it looks like they're planning to add some of these features in the next release. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just found WP:REFLINKS, this seems to work better for bare links. The tool itself is here: [2] --LK (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas State Highway 114

On the Texas State Highway 114 page there is a word that says ayshire. Should it be Ayrshire?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google maps search box says "yes" -- John of Reading (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with tags

the artical I am currently writing has the following problems...

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since June 2010. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN????

It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Tagged since June 2010. NO IT IS NOT.

It is an autobiography, or has been extensively edited by the subject, and may not conform to NPOV policy. Tagged since June 2010. IT's NOT AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY. AUSTYN BROWN IS A SOLO ARTIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austynbrown (talk • contribs) 08:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of messages on your talk page that give more detail about these article tags. But in brief...

All topics at Wikipedia have to be notable. A solo artist will typically pass this test by being written about in reliable sources such a newspapers. If Austyn Brown has not been written about, the article will be deleted.
All topics at Wikipedia have to be verifiable. The article must mention the sources of the information so that anyone reading the article can check for themselves that it is correct. The Austyn Brown article does not explain where the information is coming from.
For legal reasons, all articles at Wikipedia that are about living people MUST mention at least one reliable source.
Your chosen user name, "Austynbrown", would seem to indicate that you are writing about yourself. This is strongly discouraged.

-- John of Reading (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me understand about No Original Research

Here's a thought experiment; suppose there is a Wikipedia article about a fabled magical potion. One old source includes a recipe. So the article mentions the ingredients, like this:

...a recipe, which calls for carrots, onions, pieces of tree octopus, parsley and hemlock.

It comes to the attention of the editor that one of those ingredients is an unknown and possibly non-existent substance. No source can be found, however, which investigates the recipe and questions the meaning of "tree octopus". The recipe is known to have been translated from another language, although the original in that language is lost. It further comes to the attention of the editor that in this other language the words "treeoc topus" translate as "marinated beef".

Is it OK to say pieces of "tree octopus", with scare quotes, or do the quote marks count as OR?
Is it OK to mention the original language and the words for "marinated beef", or is that OR?
If these things should be left out because of OR, is that a good thing in itself, or an unfortunate side-effect in which the very necessary OR policy leads to a loss of useful information?

213.122.29.174 (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the other language is in any way tied to the potential source of the magical potion, I would say to leave a footnote saying something like "in xxx language, which is related to the origin of this potion, tree octopus means marinated beef." That appears not to be original research, because you found a source for that statement. It is just a note clarifying a possible meaning of the phrase. If the language is quite strongly tied to the source of the potion, then I would add a small paragraph to the article explaining about this definition and why it may or may not be what the potion recipe means. This is a rather interesting case. Also in response to 1. : scare quotes are POV, not OR, by nature. They lend undue weight or undue questioning to a phrase that may not be implied. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 10:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive Editing, and Possible Vandalism

Who do I speak to if I want a second pair of eyes to look over things? There's an IP user who has been making sloppy and non-encyclopaedic contributions ([3], [4]) and has resorted to insults and spam links ([5]). I've used Twinkle to revert and to warn the user; but I would like to know if my response has be the right one. •• Fly by Night (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly By Night, WP:AGF here... Not vandalism, but editing by an editor not used to Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Educate the editor... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did assume good faith ([6]) until s/he just got silly and wrote "P.S whoever keeps editing this page, please stop as you obviously dont know your head from your elbow" ([7]). •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, agf... Uncivil yes, vandalism no... ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly agree with Wifione. WP:AGF is always good. On that basis I've dropped a welcome message on their talk page. However, I am a wee bit concerned about edits like this one. I'm going to dig a bit and maybe follow up with a chat with the IP. Fly By Night, in the meantime, try and chat informally to the IP - templates obviously aren't working, and it may simply be easier to chat. Steer them towards the talk page and explain about the manual of style. TFOWR 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll give that a try... Thanks TFOWR! •• Fly by Night (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! And that was perfect, by the way. TFOWR 15:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a page created by me

I wan't to delete the page created by me....

Srijit Banerjee/

Please tell me steps to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijit92 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag it with {{db-author}}, and an administrator will help you delete it. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted it, and I have also deleted Srijit Banerjee because, with the best will in the world, you are not notable in Wikipedia's eyes. I'll leave a message on your talk page. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation issue with Béla Bartók article

The article for Béla Bartók has a link near the top of the page to a disambiguation page for other uses of Bartok, but clicking on this takes you straight back to Béla Bartók. My knowledge of Wiki-code is nowhere near up to fixing it; anyone able to take a look? SixBellsChime (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, thank you. That redirect has been a redirect since 2006, the page that was meant to be linked to was Bartok (disambiguation). Good spotting. Regards, {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDL

Is the most recent edit on the page EDL vandalism so I know if i'm correctly or incorrectly warning the user for vandalism?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not vandalism. Edit issue. Disambig pages are not expected to become edit issues like that any which way, so undo the change if you like, but better, discuss on the talk page. By the way, next time, leave a diff when posting here. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 13:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does draft become a mainspace article?

My draft in the userspace is ready BUT when I clicked the move tab the page still says "work in progress".The material has been edited by another and it is accurate.Tonyremo (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to remove {{Userspace draft}} yourself; moving the page does not automatically remove the template. You did use the correct procedure for moving the article to the mainspace, and I will remove the template for you. --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne's new single

Does peaking at #1 on a Billboard chart warrant an article's creation? If so, then I would like to create an article on Ozzy Osbourne's new single, "Let Me Hear You Scream," since it has peaked at #1 on the Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart. However, the said chart (as well as another chart the single has made: Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles) is only available on billboard.biz, which I do not have access to. If someone has access to that site, could they please retrieve "Let Me Hear You Scream's" chart information so that I can cite it in the article? Thanks! --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NSONG. Ozzy Osbourne is a world famous artist so a high charting single of his may get detailed coverage in reliable sources, but you should wait for that coverage to occur, because everything you write about the single should be verifiable in already published material.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Wright, multiple references to same article

If you look st her page,, you will see three References to the same article, "True to her Craft..." Is this the way this should be handled? Obviously each person who edited has taken something from the article in question & then referenced as a proof source.

Digby scallops (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't repeat like that. I can be called more than once but the full cite doesn't need to be repeated. See my recent edit. Dismas|^(talk) 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why

Why do people in Wikipedia fight over the Gaza flotilla and other issues. I am shocked to find that Mr. Lindholm is listed as the ambassador from Finland. Maija Lähteenmäki has been the ambassador for six months. How do we fix things like this instead of fighting over goofy things? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the first question, Wikipedia does not exist independent of the world. It exists in the world, and people that come here carry their conflicts here as well. You and I are not going to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so we ALSO are not going to be able to solve it on Wikipedia, vis-a-vis edit wars. The best we can do is to limit the damage the conflict causes to normal editing, but the conflict itself still exists. For the second question, WP:SOFIXIT is the answer. There are lots of articles which are outdated because no one fixed it. If you find something that needs fixing, the solution is to fix it yourself. It takes more time to complain about other people not fixing it than to just make it right. --Jayron32 18:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did fix it! And I have several more fixes that I am saving for the Dramaout! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the ambassdor at Embassy of Finland to Australia. All editors are volunteers and there are more than 3 million Wikipedia articles. Many things will not be up to date. I made some other improvements to the article and also fixed the ambassador at List of Ambassadors from Finland, but I wouldn't be surprised if other ambassadors there are out of date. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the content dispute issues, see the links under WP:EIW#Dispute. The basic principle for resolving real-world disputes on Wikipedia is that we aren't supposed to resolve them, we just try to document fairly what every side believes, based on reliable sources. In some cases such as the Flat Earth Society, the viewpoint of a certain group may be so far from the mainstream that few Wikipedia editors could believe they are correct. But even there we don't write that they are just a bunch of kooks, even if that's what we are thinking; instead we just say their views are far from the mainstream consensus about the shape of the earth. It is not possible to get everyone to believe the same things, but it might be possible to get everyone to agree on what all the different beliefs are. The first step to revolving a disagreement peacefully is to understand the opponent's position as well as the opponent understands it. There are a lot more steps after the first step, but on Wikipedia we can help with the first step. Of course Wikipedia is editable by anyone, including people who don't know Wikipedia's rules, so you will see some inexperienced editors who blunder into contentious articles without understanding Wikipedia's approach. Some of them will learn the rules and become productive contributors; others will refuse to learn, and be negatively productive until they get blocked. --Teratornis (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of "Aristide Razu" article

Hi,

It's me again,I keep seeing these signs over the article that I wrote /and was improved by others...etc./thanks! What do I have to do to improve it further?Or is anybody better suited for it? Kind regards.Aristiderazu (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu[reply]

I've replied on the article talk page - I saw your question there before I saw it here. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite all the improvements, Aristide Razu still has no reliable sources. I've added an original research tag. Would anyone like to add a prod/afd tag? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well ,now the article about Aristide Razu looks good.Thanks!Aristiderazu (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu.[reply]

I even found a couple of references to reliable sources - notice that you can click on them to see small extracts from books that back up some of the facts in the article. You could have a go at finding sources for the rest of the article - you will do it better than I can because they probably won't be in English. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well about the 22nd Romanian infantry Division,translated by me from Constantin Kiritescu's The War For Wholing Romania or Razboiu Pentru Intregirea Romaniei 1916-1918,vol I,Chapter III,Defending The Charpatians,page 411.

"The surprise at Rucar

At 10th of October ,Morgen begins the advance with the 76th Division ,to force the Bran Mountain Pass.The German Commander thinks he has in front of him only the remains of the defeated Division.But ,already ,for three days now ,the troops of the 22nd Romanian Division -Commander General Aristide Razu-disembarked at Cimpulung and were replacing at Giuvala the troops of the 4th Romanian Division;at 10th of October ,the advanced elements of the 22nd Division collide with the enemy at Moieciu,small locality of Bran,between Giuvala and Bran,on Ardelenesc territory.The enemy is repulsed;its advanced is thus delayed and the thick of the Romanian troops use this time ,to unfold on to the mountaineous ridge of the frontier,occupying the strongholded positions ,during the time of neutrality.In the next days ,the troops of the 76th German Division were able to occupy all localities on the Transilvanian versant of the mountains around Bran Pass and to set in position a strong artillery.Behind the Division,at Zarnesti ,the 8th Alpine Austro-Hungaria Brigade ends its preparatives to execute a surprise hit in to the flank and back of our Army.

Against the Romanian positions on the elevations at Giuval ,the German attacks prove very soon,hopeless.At West of the Pass ,on the heights of Sirnea ,as well as to the East ,the bad terrain between frontier and Dimbovitei Bridge -Posada-were fortified with wit.The strongholds did not correspond ,certainly,to the necessities created by the Great War;amongst others ,the lack of materials made that the barbed wire fence to be replaced by thin wood fences and weeds.The small domes of 53 mm taken out of the fortified positions of Bucharests and Siret,could not resist to the German mortars .Still,the reports of German aviators brought to thinking the German Commander ;he has reached the conclussion that the Romanian position cannot be attaked frontal.The Germans appealed again to the classic manoeuvre of veiling ;the operation at Sibiu repeats itself.The 8th Alpine Austro-Hungarian Brigade ,brought from Isonzo Front ,was a suitable unit for this purpose.It was made out of Stiriens and Bosniacs ,mountain populations ,equiped and trained for mountain warfare .The brigade had also a numerous special material-mountain cannons -mounted on over 3000 donkeys.At 8th of October the Brigade was at Zarnesti.From here it was send to surround West the Chain of Mountains Piatra Craiului,at 10 miles in the flank of the Romanian positions for to fall in their back.The march of the Brigade is executed through the superior valley of Birsei,then crossed the ridge of Tamasel Mountains and descended in to Dimbovitei Valley.Through very steep valleys ,through secular woods ,paths and tracks known only by the locals ,the enemy,lead by German spyes ,which during peace times have lived in Rucar ,unobserved -and under the pretext of hunting they rove through the mountains and valleys -managed to sneak behind the Romanian positions .In the day of 13th of October ,the enemy appeared on the line Rucar-Podu Dimbovitei(Dimbovitei Bridge).The surprise was complete.Attacked with strength in front by the troops of the 76th German Division ,which were supported by a strong artillery,attacked by surprise-in the back and in flank by the Alpine Brigade ,which had numerous mountain batteries ,General Razu saw himself forced to order general retreat ,with the leaving of the positions at Sirnea and Posada.this has been executed quick ,without any loss of prisoners or of war material.Even the small canons ,mounted in the fortifications of Posada ,have been taken out of the strongholds and took by the Romanian troops in retreat.At 14th of October ,Rucar has been occupied by the enemy after a violent fight .Bran Pass was forced!"

or http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=123060&st=25 Aristiderazu (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu.[reply]

"Zoe Mandrea " article

Hi,

I wrote another article about my gg grandmother "Zoe Mandrea born Balcescu" So shoot what are the problems with this one. Any suggestion is wellcomed. Kind regards, Aristiderazu (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu[reply]

Did you read the templates left at the article? They tell you what is wrong. The major problems that I can see are:

The article lacks proper referencing and inline citations so that people can verify the information in the article.
The article does not conform to in-house style such as the use of links and sections.
The article does not make proper use of English grammar and is not particularly well written.

Of these three, only the first is a major problem. You are encouraged to make additions to Wikipedia to the best of your ability, understanding that it is ALSO expected that more people will come along later to fix the problems with your article. Cosmestic fixes are easy for other people to fix, however since YOU have access to the sources you used to write the article, other people cannot easily make corrections unless the also have access to those same sources. So, if you have to fix something, I would highly recommend you provide the source material you used to write the article. --Jayron32 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "notability" tag to Zoe Mandrea. Your first article, Aristide Razu, passed the Wikipedia notability test since this person was a general (diff of declined speedy deletion). But an article about Zoe Mandrea will be deleted if you cannot tell us why she is notable. You can do this by added references. Are there books about her? -- John of Reading (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at1.I did say about the book wriiten by my gg grandmother Zoe Mandrea ,"Icoane Din Trecut" 3.Well if someoneelse wishes to better write it ,fine by me. 2.Ok. I'll send birth certificates ,to Wikipedia, etc.To which address?3'.I did put the grave stone in the article ,thought the photo is a document for both "Aristide Razu" article and "Zoe Mandrea".Aristiderazu (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu[reply]

I read through the article, and I can't see why she would be notable as Wikipedia defines it here. Writing the book in itself would not make her notable - unless the book was widely regarded as being notable in itself (see Wikipedia:Notability (books)) - which I can see no evidence for. As for the birth certificate, etc, this would prove that she was born - but no one is disputing that! The main problem is that she does not appear to be notable from Wikipedia's criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only that she was the nice of Nicolae Balcescu by his father Barbu Balcescu and she has founded the "Societatea Femeia Romana" when there was trouble with the Apponyi Law in Transilvania.Not much.And her husband Nicolae Mandre was the founder of "Junimea".Ok I understand that on the larger scale these may not be of relevant to the World.89.114.127.23 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu.In the end they are just "wuoords!".Aristiderazu (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Aristiderazu,[reply]

Yet, Iuliu Maniu is of importance ,Ion Antonescu is of importance(!?)Good thing you don't have an article about "Bizu" Cantacuzino.No offense.Aristiderazu (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Aristiderazu.[reply]

..............

May I ask why the article was completely removed?I gave it a search and it has vanished?Is it for my own safety?Or simply because it was of no importance.I would appreciate an honest answer.Aristiderazu (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Aristiderazu[reply]

Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 June 26

Contents