User talk:M.J.E.

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. This account was created for you. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

We 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or place {{helpme|your question here}} on this page, and someone will be around to help. Again, welcome! --AccReqBot 04:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your questions on the new contributor's help page, on the page itself. --ais523 16:15, 12 October 2007 (U T C)

Mobile pedestal

A tag has been placed on Mobile pedestal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Arx Fortis (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Storage cabinet

A tag has been placed on Storage cabinet, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Arx Fortis (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Primarily the reasons are that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Footlocker (luggage)

I have nominated Footlocker (luggage), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Footlocker (luggage). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 09:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom melodies

Hi. I highly appreciate your contribusions to the articles. But I do think that there will be agreement that those two articles should be merged. I think that the article about Kingdom songs should be shown more interest and maybe go through a few changes. Do you have more info about the history of the songs and which ones being the oldest, for example? Summer Song (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Desert

I'd like to know where to buy a copy of the DVD _Lost in the Desert_? jonathon (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the URL.jonathon (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Costello

Thanks for adding a reference for the last line of the article. Without that it looks like speculation - I agree its probably true but it needed sourcing. Looks good now, though I have moved the sentence a little higher and formatted the ref to match the others in the article. Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hair and build

Hello, hair and build may change over a very short period of time and do not contribute to the reader's overall understanding of the subject. However, if you feel that these facts are important enough to warrant inclusion, re-add the info. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of David Alexander Smith

The article David Alexander Smith has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published^[1] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,^[2] and independent of the subject.^[3]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.^[4]
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

You article contained nothing of the sort above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References to above

^ What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.
^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.
^ Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.
^ Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

The sources you listed did not discuss the subject's notability; they only listed his works. This in itself is not an assertion of notability. There are plenty of lesser-known authors who've written lots of stuff, have lots of fans, but cannot have an article because the notability criteria has not been met. This isn't my own viewpoint; I am merely enforcing community consensus. I heartily welcome you to bring back the article with better references. Cheers and happy editing. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[note2-1] What constitutes a "published work" is deliberately broad.

[note3-2] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.

[note4-3] Autobiography and self-promotion are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. Thus, entries in biographical dictionaries that accept self-nominations (such as the Marquis Who's Who) do not prove notability.

[note5-4] Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]