User:Xaa/talk archives/011409

Talk Archives.

user:xaa/talk_archives/080805 User:Xaa/talk archives/081605 User:Xaa/talk archives/073006

NowCommons: Image:C pearl.gif
Image:C pearl.gif is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Cora Pearl.gif. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Xaathumbdown.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Xaathumbdown.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jim Farris
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jim Farris, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This appears to be an autobiography, and does not cite any independent, third party sources which would establish notability. I have looked around the web and not found any such sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Yilloslime (t) 19:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have deleted your suggested deletion in accordance with the procedure deliniated in the deletion notice - to whit, notability is established in the first paragraph. The links to the required external sites are currently non-functional, because I am in the process of changing publishers and my previous publisher no longer has webpages on me.  As my new publisher puts up pages, I will re-establish the required external links.  In reference to it being an "autobiography", it is not.  As you can see by the edit history, I did not establish the entry.  I have subsequently made edits to the article to keep it accurate, but as I do not frequent wikipedia much, these edits have apparently not been timely.  If you wish to discuss this further, please begin a new discussion on the article's webpage (in accordance with Wikipedia policies, all proposed deletions should be discussed on the appropriate talk page before they are made), or contact me via e-mail, I will be more than happy to chat with you or anyone else who wishes to discuss the page. Xaa (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And yes, I really do mean it, I'm more than happy to chat about the entry and your thoughts. Xaa (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Farris
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jim Farris, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Jim Farris. Thank you. Yilloslime (t) 06:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As the template above says, I have nominated Jim Farris for deletion. The article and its subject appear to fail WP's guideline for notability, which is here: WP:BIO, (and more generally here: WP:N). In a nutshell, to be notable enough for inclusion in WP, the subject of an article needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant means that the subject has been the topic of ideally multiple articles/reports/exposés, etc, not merely mentioned in passing. Reliable source means not a blog or self-published website or zine, but rather a venue with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Finally, independent means without connection to the subject. I've looked around and tried to find examples of such coverage and have not been successful. If such coverage exists, your best bet for keeping the article from being deleted is to update it by including reference to this coverage. A book review from a well known venue, for example, might help establish notability. Yilloslime (t) 06:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

---

While I understand your points, I find I simply disagree.

1) If you do a google search for Jim Farris, I'm 9 of the top 20 results, and 5 of the top ten. And of all those results, only one is Wikipedia's page on me.  Six months ago, I was the number one result on Google, and the "I'm feeling lucky" button always went to my personal site - and if you throw quotes around the name, I still am number one.  And six months ago, I had fifteen of the top twenty google results.

What happened is I've been changing publishers these last few months and doing quite a bit of freelance ghostwriting. As such, so my previous publisher's website no longer shows me, and it will be a bit before my new publisher's website makes it up the index. In short, I really am "notable", particularly considering how many people go by the name "Jim Farris."

2) Just because you can't find something on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't notable. The Web Is Not The World.  I've been ghostwriting for several months, and I've been in the process of changing publishers.  Ghostwriting is actually rather lucrative, but you don't get your name published anywhere when you do it.  So, I'm slipping below the "google radar."  Six months from now, this could change.

Still, if you feel it necessary to continue with this process, well, I'm really not interested in fighting over it. My life is really far too busy to worry about this issue. So, go ahead. Poke an admin you know and are friendly with, and get the page speedy-deleted. It's fine by me.

No, seriously. I'm not angry, I'm not upset. The issue isn't that important to me. Do what you think is right. Xaa (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)