User talk:19blackcat62

Speedy deletion of Peter Goggins
A tag has been placed on Peter Goggins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there's no indication of notability - a soldier shot at dawn and subsequently featured on TV programmes and newspaper articles has a reasonable claim to importance. However, the article can't be kept because it's lifted from the Guardian in violation of copyright. Please don't post coyrighted material to Wikipedia - you put yourself and the site at legal risk by doing so. You are, of course, free to write about Goggins in your own words, using the Guardian article as a source of information rather than of text. Regards, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 15:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. Whilst some of the soldiers executed by the UK in WWI have become notable, because their cases have been explored by the press at length (most notably Harry Farr, this doesn't automatically mean that all of the 300+ cases are notable. Yes, this case has had a Guardian write-up, but that is only a single source, and insufficient to establish notability. Mayalld (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right of course that the Guardian article doesn't establish notability by itself, but it does allude to a TV documentary, and a quick Google brings up a number of other good sources, and that's before considering the possibility of pre-internet coverage of what seems to have been a fairly notorious case. There seems to be enough here to write an article with. Also, keep in mind that to avoid a speedy deletion an article doesn't have to establish that a subject is notable - it just has to give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. WP:CSD is designed to weed out "vanity" articles for obviously unimportant people (Joe Bloggs is a student at Somewhere High School who likes football), not to let individual editors second-guess whether sources are likely to exist - such things are better looked at by multiple eyes. In this case the Guardian reference would in itself be enough to avoid a speedy deletion. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken! Clearly there is a risk of us ending up with 350 articles of mostly non-notable stuff, arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF in AfD debates! But such is Wikipedia :-) Mayalld (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)