I agree with Nemo's assessment. I would not have speedy-deleted it myself, but I do not have enough information to conclude that User:Seraphimblade was right or wrong to do so. I don't know how extensively they sought additional source material, etc. Unless somebody provides indication of sufficient source materials, it's difficult for an admin (or anybody) to assess notability, so often articles are deleted. The best way to avoid speedy deletion of a new article -- and to help the users and administrators who patrol such things to do the job well -- is to be sure that multiple high quality sources are included in the first edit, along with a clear statement of significance.
Looks like the article is well on its way now. Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> wrote: > I think the article was most likely deleted for being a "sub-stub" > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub#Basic_information , in that > it didn't provide even the most basic information about the subject. In > particular, the first line mixes present ("is") and past (a colony > disbanded decades ago) making it impossible for the reader to reliably > place the subject in time. Context was not misunderstood; it was simply not > provided. > > John Jackson, 13/09/2016 19:04: > >> Wikipedia seems to be a gang of >> ignorant youngster "editors" >> > > FYI this stereotype has already been disproved in 2011. > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011/Executive > _Summary#PROFILE > > Nemo > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikipedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
