User talk:Martin kelley

File copyright problem with File:Henry-herbert-tailor.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Henry-herbert-tailor.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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Henry Herbert Tailor scooter.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Henry Herbert Tailor scooter.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 created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Henry-herbert-tailor.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Henry-herbert-tailor.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. If you believe the issues have subsequently been addressed, it it perfectly OK to remove them. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 21:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Nomination of Save St Mary's for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Save St Mary's 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/Save St Mary's 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. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Journal notability

Hi Martin! I recently came across your article Friends Journal. The present sourcing doesn't appear to establish notability, so I had to tag it with {{Notability}}, as it meets WP:NMEDIA #5 but that's just an essay. IAR, I don't think we ought to be deleting articles like it, so I'm not AfDing, but if you're able to do some research and find additional sources, I'd love to be able to remove the tag. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer that I work for Friends Journal... I confused why this article has a warning label. Looking at the sources, we have:

Two well-respected Quaker colleges
The largest denominational body for Liberal Friends in the U.S.
A book published by Columbia University Press
An obituary published in the NYTimes
The main trade organization of Quaker publishers
The main religious press trade organization in the U.S.
A peer-reviewed listing of periodicals by Taylor & Francis.

Of the 11 sources, only 2 come from Friends Journal itself: the mission statement (which seems fair to point to) and an article on Quaker publications by a highly respected Quaker historian.

Friends Journal is arguably the oldest continually published periodical in the U.S. and has the widest distribution of any Quaker publication. I'm not sure what else is needed to prove notability in Wikipedia's eyes. Martin kelley (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Martin kelley! Since I left the above message, @Chillabit came by and improved the sourcing. The relevant standard that needs to be met is the general notability guideline. Let's take a look at the present sources, going in order from the current revision:

Not significant coverage (SIGCOV), as it's just a list
High-quality source, but not SIGCOV (at least on the referenced pages) as it's only two sentences. I couldn't manage to get to the cited footnote, but I'd be interested to see what that is.
Not independent, as Friends Journal itself
Only a one-paragraph finding aide, so rather marginal
Very short obit that's even shorter when considering only the sections about the journal, so not SIGCOV
Another source that's the journal itself
Not independent, as it's an affiliated organization (and link also doesn't lead to a page supporting the cited info)
I don't have access through the Wikipedia Library, but this looks like a potentially good source
Not really independent, as any news published by a university about itself is essentially a press release.
Not independent, as coming from partnering organization, and also not SIGCOV as it's a one-sentence mention.
Not media coverage, just inclusion on a list, so not usable as a source.

We need two good sources to put the article on firm notability ground, and given the above we have only possibly #8. I hope that helps explain. I'll see if I can find anything else. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've found and added two sources, [1] and [2], and that should be sufficient, so I've removed the notability tag. I'd still be interested in any other in-depth academic or journalistic coverage of the journal from independent sources to help improve the article further. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]