User talk:Hwarwick

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your question at Wikipedia talk:Talk page. There is already a page about the band at The United States Of America (band). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more info on what to do when page titles clash.

If you have any questions, you can ask at the help desk or on my talk page. Two useful tips are that you can sign your name using four tildes (~~~~) and you can preview your changes before you save using the show preview button. You can regularly find new tips on the Community Portal. I look forward to reading your great articles and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. :) Angela . 02:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Henry, if you look at the history of the original page, you'll see that Jengod moved it on June 3. The reason it hasn't yet appeared in Google is probably because not many places link to it so Google hasn't has a chance to find it yet (see Wikipedia:External search engines). Try to find some pages to link it to, and it will appear in Google. List of bands is a good place to start. Angela . 13:40, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to see Art improved, why not vote for it here: Wikipedia:Article of the week. Bmills 12:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Solaris band

I deleted the article because it was proposed for deletion (prod) on June 30 as other editors felt it did not meet the notability requirement for musicians. Per the procedure for prod, if it is left unchallenged (the prod tag is not removed) for 5 days, the article can be deleted without further discussion.

Also, the article does not assert why it is notable, or what albums they have released, which also contributed to my deciding to delete it. --soum ^talk 06:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

Hello, Hwarwick. You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alison Statton for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alison Statton 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/Alison Statton 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. Delta13C (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:John David Ebert has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:John David Ebert. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: John David Ebert (May 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The subject may be a "neglected writer", but it is not the job of Wikipedia to draw attention to him, only to summarize what reliable sources have written. It should be noted that there have been two deletion discussions, the first in 2007, which resulted in a Keep, and the second in 2014, which resulted in a Delete. Obviously there are differing opinions as to the notability of the subject. That makes it even more important for a submitter to establish that the subject is notable, and that means providing reliable sources that have written about Ebert.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John David Ebert and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:John David Ebert, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hwarwick! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:John David Ebert

Here are a few more comments about your draft on John David Ebert. He may indeed be a neglected writer, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to provide him with primary publicity. If other critics or reliable sources have stated that he is more important than is recognized, then Wikipedia can include an article on him. Your draft has no references, and so does not establish notability, and it is even more important for you to establish notability than usual. There have been two deletion discussions, and the more recent one, in 2014, deleted the article. I am not sure that was the right decision, but it isn't my job as a reviewer to second-guess a deletion discussion, but only to take its conclusion into account and review the draft considering the history. Since you didn't provide references, I don't even have a real choice. We can discuss further on the draft talk page, Draft talk:John David Ebert, or we can ask the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. I would be interested in seeing an improved draft on Ebert if you have reliable sources, in particular commenting on his influence on other writers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Robert McClenon I'm a bit of a noob with communicating inside Wikipedia. so forgive my uselessness that way. I responded to the Teahouse thing on Ebert. I will acquire references to his work over the next few weeks and edit the article. Hopefully that will make it more acceptable. I'm really not into the intricacies of wikipedia so I don't really know much about previous articles on him beyond what I could scrape and re-assemble-rewrite-reconfigure. Your points are fair (within the context of contemporary wikipedia as I have come to understand it) so I will do what I can to make the article more up to snuff with references etc. The reason why I want this article up there is that I think he's an interesting thinker. I don't agree with most of what he says, but I think he has a number of decent insights, and he's published tons of books. I think this is exactly the kind of person who *should* have an article on wikipedia.