User talk:Lishlet
August 2009
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikael Johnston. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] WuhWuzDat 00:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] 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) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to be sure that you knew that it occurred to me that the first thing you should do is take this up with the individual who closed the AfD discussion in question, Backslash Forwardslash / (talk); I've left you a further note on my talk page to that effect. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Mikael Johnston article
[edit]Hi Lishlet, I agree with you that there's been enough published about Mikael Johnston to warrant a stub article. I read User:Backslash Forwardslash's rationale of why he came to the decision delete the article at AfD and it's logical and makes sense. I don't disagree with that decision based on what was posted at the AfD. I've been busy so didn't take the time to write up a cohesive argument. It might make sense to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. I would make the case that SF Weekly, Allmusic, East Bay Express, and Keyboard Magazine obviously are reliable sources and enough to meet WP:N. I think the overwhelming number of questionable sources, the fact that it was an autiobiography, and the number of single use accounts jumping into the discussion, clouded that. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources for what exactly constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia. If you stick to using sources that meet those criteria, I don't see how any editor acting in good faith wouldn't welcome the article. dissolvetalk 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)