User talk:ReidWilliam
Welcome!
Hello, ReidWilliam, 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:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Proposed deletion of Peter Mandel[edit]
The article Peter Mandel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article does not establish notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
The page has also been left in a messy state. I hope you will return to editing Wikipedia, but please learn more of the standard formatting methods, e.g. from WP:CHEAT and WP:CITE. – Fayenatic London 10:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Peter Mandel for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Mandel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Mandel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
welcome[edit]
welcome. I'm sorry you got jumped on your maiden effort editing Wikipedia. editing pages is really that hard, it just takes a little while to get the knack. I could with that User:Fayenatic london had spent a little time walking you through the necessary edits, instead of taking a page on a patently notable writer to AFD, but, well, it's how things work here. Please don't be discouraged. There are user-friendly links to how to edit atop your talk page. And I do hope you'll stick around, lots of pages on topics you know/care care about need attention. (I assert this with confidence, since we have so many pages in need of attention)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)::Tip. an easy way to learn to edit is to look at pages similar to the one you are working on , writer's pages. copy the format, code used to your edits on this page. Also, add some information to those pages, with sources, as a way of getting used to the process.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is. An AFD is allowed to run for 7 days (although it can be closed sooner if an article is rapidly tidied up and really persuasive good are added to the page) Ordinarily, After ~ 7 days, an editor will swing by and, if participating editors have come to a consensus, keep or delete it. If they have not reached consensus, or if too few editors have by and expressed opinions, the comment period will be extended, but sooner or later, an editor will make a decision to close the AFD discussion as: delete, keep, or "no consensus". If "no consensus" the article will be kept for the nonce in the hope that with time notability or lack thereof will become clear.
- Think of it as like a legal proceeding, with judges doing their best. Topics (in this case, a writer) are judged not according to whether the commenting editor thinks that the writer is wonderful or dreadful, but according to whether reliable secondary sources discussing the writer exist. See WP:AUTHOR but also WP:GNG which might cover an author whose work is not highly regarded, but who has been profiled, repeatedly, in the press for some other reason. What the page needs to stay up is not articles by Mandel, but articles about him or about something he has written. He need not be the sole topic of such an article, there might, for example, be a short discussion of his work or life in an an article about writers who live in Providence. Interviews with him published in reputable publications. And book reviews in reputable publications.
- The article is tagged for cleanup. Think of it as a writing exercise. You are being asked to write an article about Peter Mandel, his life and career. But zero creativity on your part. Every fact, from where he lives to what sort of writing he does must be drawn from the source(s) that appear at the end of every sentence.
- There is indeed a real deadline here. 7 days after the AFD began, an editor can close it as delete. After that - even though good sources not now on the page exist - getting an article on Mandel back up will be a major production.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
- The article is tagged for cleanup. Think of it as a writing exercise. You are being asked to write an article about Peter Mandel, his life and career. But zero creativity on your part. Every fact, from where he lives to what sort of writing he does must be drawn from the source(s) that appear at the end of every sentence.
- Think of it as like a legal proceeding, with judges doing their best. Topics (in this case, a writer) are judged not according to whether the commenting editor thinks that the writer is wonderful or dreadful, but according to whether reliable secondary sources discussing the writer exist. See WP:AUTHOR but also WP:GNG which might cover an author whose work is not highly regarded, but who has been profiled, repeatedly, in the press for some other reason. What the page needs to stay up is not articles by Mandel, but articles about him or about something he has written. He need not be the sole topic of such an article, there might, for example, be a short discussion of his work or life in an an article about writers who live in Providence. Interviews with him published in reputable publications. And book reviews in reputable publications.
- Now, you wait another seven days while additional editors weigh in. You and others can continue to edit the article. A page on the Society of American Travel Writers, describing the organization, detailing the prizes it gives out, and establishing their notability would be a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk)
- Like purgatory, deletion discussions do eventually end. Many editors will hesitate to join this discussion because it has gone on so long, and because most editors are deeply reluctant to approve new articles written by newcomers to Wikipedia. It may take a while. The only really useful things that anyone can do at this point is to edit the article into more normative encyclopedia style, and/or to discover and add compelling new sources, such as published profile aricles about Mandel. Too long a list of weak sources (which the article now has) is unpersuasive. The other truly persuasive improvement would be to create a well-sourced Wikipedia page about the Association of American Travel Writers, using reliable, published sources to establish that the prizes it awards are considered notable. Beyond that, patience. Eventually, someone will come along and close it as keep, delete or no consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)