Talk:Lynn Huggins-Cooper

Untitled
Hello, fellow editors ... 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. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * what softens the blow--what in fact transfoms the blow into a promise-- is not a template--even a remarkably skilled template-- with fancy little spikes and ribbons and apologies and caveats, with a long text explanation of every possible way to avoid or repair damage. all it does is give the impression we are a big self-important overcomplicated sophisticated web 3.0 machine instead of a primitive piece of first-generation automaton run by first generation usenet types.  What works is a short polite personal note explaining briefly how to write a better article or contribute meaningfully, with a link or two for further reading--i like WP:FIRST and WP:CTW--and a offer for personal assistance. If it doesnt take of the actual contribution--even the actual vandalism--it isnt responsive.
 * We get 2 to 3,000 articles a day, about 2/3 of which must be rejected. We have 1000 active admins to do it. I can write 2 or 3 real notes a day, and so can anyone else. Any experience non admin also. We have enough good people here to teach every new contributor carefully and personally. DGG (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So we have two citations now. Does this satisfy WP:N? I think it's probably just good enough but want to ask before removing the template. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Okay, so the COI template is back. When is it okay to remove it? WP:AUTO says Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged but it doesn't prohibit it entirely. Also, we have a couple of inline cites here, several other people have edited, and I've done some cleanup to remove POV. How else can we improve the article so we don't have to have this ugly template? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lynn Huggins-Cooper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090911180919/http://www.walkingwithwitches.co.uk/ to http://www.walkingwithwitches.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)