User talk:Andrew-nightingale

Welcome!

Hello, Andrew-nightingale, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Phil bye

The article Phil bye has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Phil bye, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to a comment you left on my talk page, including, in part:

[I] believe him to have the potential to be massive all over the world once his talent is exposed to the public on a greater scale ... iv met him on a number of occations and effectivly interviewed him i was giving wikipedia the oppotunity to have an artical on him from the start

First, the fact that he has not yet been exposed to the public on a greater scale is the main reason the article was deleted. It cited no independent reliable sources to present evidence that Bye is a notable editor. Until he clears the hurdle of notability—either the general guidelines or those specifically for people—he should not have an article on Wikipedia.

Second, because you conducted the interview yourself, it is original research. Wikipedia articles should draw on independently published sources; Wikipedia is not a repository for original research. The article needs to be based on published stories about Bye: newspapers, magazines, etc. Blogs are not reliable sources, and reviews can be a tricky matter. This dovetails on the first: until/unless he is covered in those types of publications, he is not yet notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]