Talk:Diane Salema

Untitled
I recently encountered this article while performing either New Page Patrol, Recent changes patrol, or Counter-Vandalism Unit activities, and in my opinion as a Wikipedia editor, it either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it reads like blatant Vanispmcruftisment.

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of Notability … without them, an article is just original research, which is prohibited by official policy. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only links to unreliable ones like MySpace, Google, and Amazon.com) raises a flag for some editors that such attributable sources may not, in fact, exist.

The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a  that explains my reasons why I believe that it should be deleted, or else a  tag for speedy deletion (CSD A7).

I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the author,, will also comment on their opinions and actions here ... please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.


 * Other experienced editors: Please see the Draft protocol to minimize friction from hasty deletions, and try to keep the proposed and speedy deletion processes from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is


 * "Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!"


 * In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), then have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.


 * OTOH, if you do not believe that qualifies for a speedy deletion, but it nonetheless lacks any attribution whatsoever, then consider either (a) replacing the CSD tag with a , or (b) listing it on Articles for Deletion; either alternative gives the author an opportunity to add reliable sources for verifying their assertion(s) of notability, and if no improvements have been made in the five days provided by the proposed deletion tag, then no further consensus is needed for deletion.


 * Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for this article's author, ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as one of the Administrators to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a stub article.


 * It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)

I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the proposed and speedy deletion processes, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved. &mdash; 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed PROD
The user has removed a WP:PROD that was seconded by another user, and simply inserted more external links that fail WP:RS to establish WP:BIO notability ... I have restored the   tag as they have not yet been resolved ... being one of seven hosts of a show does not fulfill the notability requirements for inclusion here. &mdash;72.75.72.63 (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)