User talk:Carolann Wright

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Carolann Wright, 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 may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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

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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Govindaharihari (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S Griffin[edit]

Please take time to investigate wikipedia guides. The sources you are adding are not wp:rs - please look for independent third party sources to add details - Govindaharihari (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite what is an independent third party sources? There are thousands of references to this author on Google, including interviews, etc., but this is pop culture history, not a scientific paper. There aren't going to be "academic sources", just newspaper interviews, articles, and listings on the major databases like IMDB, Amazon, etc. I used primary sources, then secondary sources, and you threw them all out. I've spent most of my day just trying to recognize an author I'm a fan of and you keep deleting my work. If what I'm doing isn't good enough for Wikipedia, I need specifics.Carolann Wright (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone at Wikipedia that can take the information I'm providing and verify it on Google, since my sources aren't good enough? I used the major, public sources of information (Amazon, IMDB, etc.) that are PROFESSIONAL in nature, not fanblogs, then followed that up with magazine&newspaper articles and none of it is accepted. I'm not sure what else you need? This author's book is on Amazon. He tours the country and does lectures and signings. He's the authority in the field.Carolann Wright (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - amazon and imbd are not wp:rs - please read Wikipedia:Third-party sources best - Govindaharihari (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve your details in wikipedia guidelines to help it continue to be kept here, please try not to add content against this sites policies that would increase the possibility of the article being deleted completely, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've learned over the years that one must not become upset with Wikipedia's arcane rules and guidelines. The important thing is that we don't rely on primary sources, but on secondary ones. Basically, that's to attest that somebody else besides a Wikipedia editor found the information to be Notable and Reliable. Thanks for your interest in improving the encyclopedia. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I believe I'm getting the hang of it now.Carolann Wright (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Scott Tracy Griffin for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Tracy Griffin 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/Scott Tracy Griffin 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Tracy Griffin[edit]

Hi Carolann, thanks for your edits to the Griffin article. I see that a lot of work went into creating it. I nominated it for deletion because the subject didn't seem to have enough notability. Sometimes this process generates a lot of sources and the article is improved and kept, sometimes not. I actually took a stab at improving the article first, but struggled to find a few good, solid sources about him. If you are able to find more reliable sources (eg. magazine articles about him), it would help. Thanks again, and please don't take it personal or be deterred. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Magnolia, please see my extensive response on that deletion page. The Wiki entry you are judging was repeatedly altered and deleted by Govindaharihari. I had primary and secondary sources (author's website, Amazon, IMDB, etc.), and have finally included third party (newspaper articles) at their urging, but don't expect that to last. He/she was taking it down almost as fast as I could put it up. I spent the better part of the day trying to put five factual sentences on Wiki as a trial run, and it's quickly become more trouble than it's worth. I was hoping to become a regular contributor, since I've run across several pages that have numerous (often egregious) errors on them, but it's just not worth it if one person deletes your work before anyone sees it. BTW, if I understand correctly, were you the one who misunderstood the Locus magazine reference? I stated that the book was an award FINALIST (there were five finalists listed in each category), not an award winner--maybe you saw a version of the text that had been adulterated by someone else? I rewrote it (again) to make this clear. Anyway, so much for being a Wikipedia contributor, I tried, but it just isn't the collaborative process I envisioned. Best wishes, CarolannCarolann Wright (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carolann, I actually looked at all that before nominating the article for deletion. Sources which are self-published or promotional, such at IMDB, are generally frowned upon by Wikipedia because they are not neutral. As well, being a finalist is less notable on Wikipedia than winning the award. If you look at my nomination you will see the links I added to Wiki policy, and the criteria for notability. Also, if you look at the first edit by User:Govindaharihari you will see that that editor removed all the non-neutral information you had added in good faith. For Wikipedia to be taken seriously as a source of information, it enforces policies of neutrality and genuine notability. I noticed this bio because I patrol almost all of the Mississippi towns and cities, and you had added the bio to Starkville's notable people. There are Wiki editors all over the world who watch articles for changes, and collectively and collaboratively work together to build the encyclopedia. Wikipedia's high standards should be your takaway. If you peek at my talk page, you will see that just yesterday I asked another editor if in his opinion, I should write a biography about an individual. Look at his response. And we are both experienced editors. Anyway, cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I put a call out for third-party, print sources and have received and added a couple. I'm sure if the article remains, others can provide additional sourcing.Carolann Wright (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]