FYI I added a template to the Talk page that I "borrowed" and blanked from Lata Mangeshkar's page -- please update / customize as is helpful.
Recommend that to prevent speedy deletions - work on article on namespace/draftspace if possible - 5 to 10 (ideally) Wikilinked citations from large newspapers and articles that are in-depth features on or with subject - Infobox, even if minimally filled in, a shell is helpful - Authority control (viaf.org, etc.) - Commons template if media is available added to external links section - Discogs, AllMusic etc. templates in external links -- re-inforces notability Recommend with new page creation that editor asks other experienced editors to look at stub before making public. Also multiple editors working on a page is ideal Oftentimes it's the fact that the article isn't developed to the best of its potential versus notability that is the culprit with speedy deletions. We run into these a lot at the editathons here in NYC, and it's very frustrating. Sorry you had to deal with this but glad to see it seems to be up there okay now. Best, - Erika *Erika Herzog* Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>* On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Pete Forsyth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
