User talk:Loginerupdated

Welcome!

Hello, Loginerupdated, 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, such as Global issue, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, 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:

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! Chris857 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Global issue‎[edit]

The article Global issue‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all 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.

Nomination of Global Issue for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Global Issue 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/Global Issue 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:SL-poster.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SL-poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission from copyright holder (now it is oral) could you please give me a reference to the draft of the writing premission (if it is needed) or advice me what moves shall copyright holder do to prove that

1) he is a copyright holder

2) he agrees to this publication

or in any other way resolve this issue.

Thank you in advance!

--Loginerupdated (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The permission should be mailed to OTRS. See COM:OTRS for further information. You should also add {{OTRS pending}} to the file information page so that no one deletes the image. And no thread splitting, please. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Silent Life[edit]

A tag has been placed on Silent Life requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Sorry, but the reason it was deleted was because there aren't enough reliable sources that give in-depth coverage of the film. You added lots of sources, but they were only mentioning it once in passing and that doesn't count as a reliable source that shows notability. The articles need more than 1-2 sentences mentioning the film in order to show notability. You can't even really consider those to be anything more than trivial sources at best. (Although trivial sources still don't show notability, see WP:TRIVIALMENTION and WP:TRIVCOV.) The other issue with sources was that one of them was a primary source, which can never show notability. One of the links was to the film's official website and the other was to a press release. Press releases are considered to be primary sources and do not show notability. The only other source was a link to a Russian webpage, which was of dubious reliability. Unfortunately, having Isabella Rossellini in it doesn't automatically give the film notability. She's a brilliant actress, but not all of her films are considered notable by having her in them. (WP:NOTINHERITED)

The big problem here is that since the film has yet to be released, the standards for notability are far higher and stricter than they are with WP:NFILM. WP:NFF is pretty strict and in order to pass, it must have a LOT of coverage, which means that the films that usually end up passing NFF are the big uber-blockbusters. Right now all we can really do is just wait until the film releases in August (filming has been pushed back) and more sources become available.

I encourage you to help at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Silent Life, but I do want to caution you against re-adding the sources that were in the previous edition that you re-added. None of those show notability and aren't considered to be reliable or trivial sources, so they really don't add anything to the article. It's best if we keep the links added to the ones that mention the film in more depth, as adding many trivial sources doesn't show notability and can often undermine the article when it comes to passing notability guidelines, which is why I personally avoid them as much as possible. It just shows that there's a lot of trivial mentions. If you have any questions about what's considered to be a reliable source, feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

I know, it's frustrating, but re-adding the article is not an option at this time. It's not ready and if it was brought back, it'd get deleted again because it lacks enough reliable sources to pass either WP:NFF or WP:NFILM.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Loginerupdated. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I came by to let you know why the article was deleted and to suggest options... but see that you have already heard from someone quite willing and able to work with you on improving the article so as to make it a possible exception to the guide at WP:NFF.

To clarify a bit on what she wrote above, even the two or three sentences offered in some reliable sources are actually quite fine for inclusion therein to cite facts in the article... as all information in an article MUST be verifiable. Simply put... no matter their depth of coverage, sources being reliable is mandated per policy. That said, and in undescoring what she wrote above, you still need consider that it is signifcant coverage that validates the assertion of notability. So, and while okay for verifiability, short mentions do little to meet the notability guideline suggested requirement for significant coverage. You have however offered on my talk page some quite decent articles that do indeed offer significant coverage... and that's for the good.

Just as does User:User:Tokyogirl79, I urge patience and diligence. In the meantime, you might pave the way for its return by including sourced information about their participation in the articles on the main players. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vlad Kozlov for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vlad Kozlov 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/Vlad Kozlov 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. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]