User talk:EPresslerHenderson

{{helpme}} An article I watch and have started trying to develop into a decent wiki article (Dale Rogers Training Center) has been flagged with the "general notability guideline" tag (even though it existed for over a year and was never tagged as such up until now). My question: what exactly would make it appropriate for me to remove this tag? Most tags have obvious fixes, but there is quite a lot of subjectivity to this one. After reading Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), I feel like there are enough articles on the subject/organization to qualify it as "notable," but I can also see some people arguing against it because there aren't many national/international articles.

The only references in the article at the moment that would contribute to meeting the general notability guideline are those to The Oklahoman. Unfortunately, there are no links to online copies of these articles so it is difficult for editors to judge whether or not they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" – they could be very brief, or puff pieces, for example. So, if you have access to the articles, and are convinced that they meet the requirements, you could leave a note on the talkpage (Talk:Dale Rogers Training Center) and then remove the tag. Alternatively, you could find new sources which are available online and add those to the article. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I think that you should remove the reference to "Dale Rogers Training Center" because that is a reference to a primary source. You should also remove any facts that cannot be proven from reliable sources - there are currently a lot of facts in the article which don't have references - for example, "Dale Rogers provides training or employment to over 1,000 teenagers and adults" - as a reader, how could I verify that for myself? Either source it, or remove it. Also, it does not currently conform to a neutral point of view. For example, "Dale wrote the inspirational bestseller Angel Unaware" - the word "inspirational" is an opinion, not a fact. It might *just about* be acceptable to describe it as a best-seller if there were sources stating this - but it would be preferable to say, "It has sold over xxx copies (with a ref). State the facts, and let the reader make up their own mind. "One of the things that distinguishes Dale Rogers Training Center" - sounds like original research to me.

Please take this feedback in the spirit intended - to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Remember that such tags are intended to help improve the article, they should not be considered a criticism. Please have a go at making it more encyclopaedic, and do ask for more help whenever you need it. You might want to ask for more input on WP:FEED, for example. Good luck with it; for more help, you can either;

Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Talk to us live, with this.

Best wishes, Chzz ► 19:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, great information. Skomorokh, good idea on making a note on the talk page. It'll allow me to explain the scope of the articles I'm referencing (a couple are very in depth and, IMO, worthy of "notibility").--EPresslerHenderson (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who added the "notability" I wanted to explain. It was based on what I was able to find online - 213 Google hits, which isn't many, and they are all directories, job search sites, and press releases; and the links at Google news seemed equally trivial. I personally believe that the burden of "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject" has not been met, but that's just me. Nobody needs my permission to remove the tag, and I won't restore it myself - it's really not worth edit warring over. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Dawn Bard. Now that I'm adding references to significant news articles from a large regional paper, ~~I'm going to review the requirements on both of the notability pages and see if it'll be appropriate to remove the tag.~~ Oh, nevermind, that's already been taken care of by someone else! Nice.--EPresslerHenderson (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chzz ► 20:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:School_children_1950s.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:School_children_1950s.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:WorkerWithDisability.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:WorkerWithDisability.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:DaleEvansRogersWithDaughter.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:DaleEvansRogersWithDaughter.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:AcrylicAward.JPG

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:AcrylicAward.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:3 ring logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:3 ring logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]