User talk:Abfabsol

Welcome!

Hello, Abfabsol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Ava 'N Zak, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

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 New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• 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:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! TheLetterM (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ava 'N Zak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheLetterM (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ava 'N Zak requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheLetterM (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with the sources on the page is that barely any of them look like they have any actual link to the subject of the article; not even tangentially. Any sources about a subject on Wikipedia has to explicitly mention and discuss the subject and not just vaguely allude to something the subject is associated with. TheLetterM (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will rewrite my article to demonstrate importance of subject. considering that it is my first one, and also first time in wikitext it has been quite challenging.

However, to say that the sources are vaguely talking about the subject or that they are not even tangentially ad hoc is actually geometric fallacy and complete inaccurate observation, which denotes that the sources were not verified or looked in depth and that my article was only superficially read.

It is actually upsetting that because there is a strong need to police the content of Wikipedia, potentially borderline articles like this one are not considered seriously for the sake of efficiency in the policing efforts.

It is always easier to say no than to take the time and vet properly.

I will re-write it but I have to say that I am disappointed of this response.

The entire point of Wikipedia is to be a collective conscience of the knowledge and of how humans are adjusting to the challenges of life. This community is an example of that, a group of people whom are trying to rise above the challenges of economic evolution and actually are contributing to our human record in the change of consciousness that the world is experiencing.

Eleonora Salazney 10:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not about whatever anyone feels like writing about. Rather, it is an encyclopedia that has certain standards for what topics merit an article. You were taking the right approach, using your User:Abfabsol/Ava 'N Zak/Sandbox sandbox. The current form is nowhere near ready for being an article at this time. There's no borderline here...several editors have noted that it does not make specific claims of notability (in the wikipedia sense). At best, it attempts to sound notable because it is about or related to notable things. That's very different. Please take some time to read the standards we keep mentioning. They are our community policies and guidelines for articles...if you follow their advice, you will hopefully be able to get your article into an acceptable form soon or see why it is not possible at this time. Maybe the topic is just too new to have gotten attention from other media and publications? DMacks (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how you are a new editor having trouble getting the hang of things, Wikipedia:Your first article might be a good introduction. DMacks (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]