User talk:IDuchess

Welcome!

Hello, IDuchess, 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 Sticks and Stones (novel), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

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, followed by your question, 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! reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sticks and Stones (novel)

The article Sticks and Stones (novel) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK.

While all constructive 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. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Pirate King

The article The Pirate King has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable book, a search brings up nothing that would show that this passes WP:NBOOK.

While all constructive 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arch Enemy Entertainment for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arch Enemy Entertainment 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/Arch Enemy Entertainment 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing AfD template

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Arch Enemy Entertainment. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 07:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Enemy Entertainment

Hi IDuchess. Tokyogirl79 has asked me to venture a third opinion on the debate the two of you are currently having at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch Enemy Entertainment. I don't feel comfortable adding a !vote to the discussion there (it could seem like canvassing) but for the record, had I done so, it would have been Delete. Here's why.

Wikipedia strives only to contain article on notable topics. Notability, here, has a very specific meaning, different to its dictionary definition. On Wikipedia, something is considered notable iff it has been the subject of significant coverage (several paragraphs of prose, not namechecks, passing mentions, directory listings or detailed coverage of things related to the topic) in reliable (editorially oversighted publications from professional writers), multiple (two or more), independent (not affiliated or associated with the subject) sources. Demonstrating such coverage by referencing the sources is, at the end of the day, the only way to keep an article on Wikipedia.

In the case of AEE, I've been through all of the sources (including the ones that have been removed) and can see only one (Publisher's Weekly) that fulfils the requirements above. It provides significant coverage of the company, is reliable, and is not connected to the company. Unfortunately, it's only the one source, and notability requires more than that. As such, I find that AEE does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. This is no reflection whatsoever on the company itself (which may well be, and probably is, noteworthy in the standard sense of the term), nor on the quality or content of the article; it's a simple assessment of the subject in relation to Wikipedia's inclusion requirements.

I hope this helps to clarify the issue - basically: without more sources like PW, the article shouldn't be here. Articles on the company's products and personnel are a separate issue, and may well be warranted, but AEE itself does not appear to warrant a dedicated page on Wikipedia at this time. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too was asked to write to you and agree with the comments of other editors, which is based on Wikipedia policy. However, I think you should discuss this matter with the people you work with, because it is usually inadvisable for organizations or individuals to have Wikipedia articles. At present, when I google "Arch Enemy Entertainment", the first results are the company website, the Wikipedia article, facebook, and twitter, followed by articles presumably based on company press releases. If the Wikipedia article did not exist, anyone searching for the company would find sites either controlled or influenced by them.

Wikipedia however allows anyone to edit, and all you need is one person who dislikes the company and one piece of bad information, even only remotely related, for the article to present a negative view. The article could even come to the top of the search list, meaning that people researching the company would read it instead of looking at the company's website. I suggest you look through other company articles to see what can happen, for example Smithfield Foods.

If the article is deleted, it will drop off the search results. It will of course be possible to recreate the article, so deletion is not irrevocable. But if it is re-created, bear in mind that your company will have to monitor it constantly to ensure that it is accurate and neutral and has not been vandalized. Furthermore, the conflict of interest guidelines may prevent your company from editing the article, and restrict you to one account. In the worst case, you could be blocked from having an account at all. And any disputes would be immediately accessible to the public, merely by clicking the talk page.

TFD (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]