User talk:BunyipMan

Welcome![edit]

Hello, BunyipMan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Deb (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there![edit]

Hi BunyipMan. Can I ask you to please hold off on nominating any more of User:Stuartyeates New Zealand biography stubs for deletion, at least until those you've already listed can be dealt with? We have to look over each one individually, and the CSD category is getting pretty clogged up with your nominations. As an alternative, to keep you entertained, perhaps I could suggest that you have a look round for additional sources for them, rather than reflexively leaping for the CSD button - it's far more rewarding to turn a stub into a half-decent article than to simply slap it with {{db-a7}} and move on. Thanks. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will hold off as you have requested. I agree that it's far more rewarding to turn a stub or any incomplete article into a half-decent or more complete article than to simply slap it with {{db-a7}} or any type of AfD and move on. BunyipMan (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it. The pages linked to at the NZ Dictionary of Biography do usually have a link at the bottom to other sources, which may be useful. I'll try and deal with as many of your nominations as I can over the next hour or so. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the nominations. The subjects are considered important enough to be mentioned in a national biographical reference work (Dictionary of New Zealand Biography), which means that they could be important also for this encyclopedic project. I agree that creator's work on it wasn't perfect, but it doesn't mean that we should delete those articles, they provide some information (+ reliable and encyclopedic reference) to our readers, and it is better than having no information. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I disagree with Vejvančický on this - a listing in the NZ DoB is not in itself an indication of significance, IMHO - but he's saved me a shedload of work so I'm not going to complain. Might I suggest instead that you go through the pages and list them for either PROD or AFD, one or two at a time - there's no rush, and I'm pretty certain at least some of these people do in fact meet WP:N. Bulk up the notable ones, AFD the non-notables, and we can hopefully end up with a net positive for Wikipedia. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said they could be important also for this encyclopedic project, but I declined rather on the basis that ... an editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag from it. The presence in NZ DoB at least suggests those people might be notable, which is enough to avoid speedy deletion. Of course, you are right that the articles should be dealt with better care. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I normally come down on the side of AfD, as I feel the more people agree stuff should be deleted, the better, I think these were all very marginal cases. I notice that Deb has picked up the baton with Eveline Willett Cunnington, but even now the only thing that's making me think she's notable is the claim for being one of New Zealand's first female prison visitors, and that's tenuous. And if they might be notable, they still need to go to AfD, unless they're sufficiently source to unambiguously verify that they are, which they just aren't right now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objections against individual AfDs. I objected to speedy deletion, which is different. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, they were all credible candidates for speedy deletion, simply because none of them really gives an explanation of their importance. (That doesn't mean I would have deleted them.) Deb (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Longjohnlong (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]