User talk:Leslie Lucrisia

Welcome

Hello, Leslie Lucrisia! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ThePointblank 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Evolutionary Astrology

The article Evolutionary Astrology has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it 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 assert notability 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. Also, see WP:SPAM and WP:V. NawlinWiki 02:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Evolutionary astrology

Evolutionary astrology, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Evolutionary astrology satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary astrology and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Evolutionary astrology during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Acroterion _(talk) 03:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EA

Thank you for contributing! Please understand that, while anyone may edit Wikipedia, there are a series of requirements for articles to remain in the encyclopedia, and the deletion nomination process helps us to maintain those standards. I would suggest that you consult the following Wikipedia references:

The welcome note at the top of the page contains links to many of these sources.

All of these will guide you in your writing. The reason the Evolutionary astrology article was proposed for deletion is that it does not clearly define what evolutionary astrology is, nor does it provide multiple, notable and independent sources or references for the topic. Since it only references a book by the originator of the concept, it appears to constitute original research, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Unfortunately, after reading the article in question, I cannot tell you what it is about, except that Pluto is involved and that Mr. Green is very concerned with Pluto. Thus, my proposal for deletion.

I would suggest that you start out with less ambitious edits to existing topics, or very short articles on simple topics at first, to get a feel for editing. Since Wikipedia is becoming mature, it becomes very hard to insert new articles on new topics without close scrutiny for style, references and content. Since the article was immediately deleted once, and will not appear to survive the more formal deletion process now underway, please do not reintroduce the article unless you are certain that you have addressed the concerns that I and others have expressed. Acroterion _(talk) 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 09:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evolutionary astrology AfD

Hello Leslie,

Thank you for your message on my talk page (diff.) concerning the deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary astrology. My comment in that debate was :

Delete unless it can be shown that this concept is discussed by third party reliable sources. As it stands, it is an unbalanced analysis of a book - verifiable only by reference to the original - in violation of WP:NOR

I understand that deletion debates can be harsh, but I have to say I largely stand by my comment. Deletion debates are open to anyone to comment on the sources and quality of an article, and to advise on the way forward consistent with wikipedia policy, one of which is WP:NOR. It will only be deleted if there is consensus to do so, and if it is allowed by policy. You are welcome to contribute to the debate - people will likely be persuaded to keep it if you can provide third-party sources for some of the claims made. This means sources other than the book its self, which is a primary source. I hope this helps, but you are more than welcome to ask others for help - Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place for this as I am not a very experienced editor. Again, thanks for your message and for helping Wikipedia. Best regards --TreeKittens 00:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]