User talk:Alexdc~enwiki

Hi Alexdc, I saw your question at Articles for deletion/Taylor De Cordoba. There is a definition of "notable", as developed on Wikipedia, found at Notability. In this case, people should be basing their views on a topic-specific definition, Notability (companies and corporations).

As you can see, TruthbringerToronto is trying to convince the other voters that the media coverage of your shows counts as "multiple non-trivial published works" about your business, but is having some difficulty. Thanks for being understanding about the process. The people voting will often review dozens of nominations daily and fall into a shorthand that is utterly baffling if you don't actually know the context. I'll add the standard welcome below.

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - BanyanTree 12:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notability
Hey, Thanks for coming to Wikipedia! We hope you stay around and become a regular editor.

With regards to Notability, Wikipedia has many tests of notability, these are known as notability guidelines, and they cover everything from corporations to musical groups to people. While many people use these as red flags to decide if an article needs further review, you can ignore all of these guidelines if you can meet what many call the primary notability criteria which is: nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The problem with the individual guidelines like WP:CORP is that they are too debatable. Using them to back up your point one way or the other opens up to too much interpretation. Simply establish notability by the primary notability criteria and you can render all other debates moot. To expand upon this, the primary notability criteria requires:


 * nontrivial coverage: That means it should be more than a 1-sentance DESCRIPTION of the subject, the subject should be one of the PRIMARY focuses of the articles in question.
 * multiple: That means that there should be multiple reasons to be covered. Having the same event covered by multiple sources would count as "one" coverage.  What Wikipedia is looking for is that the subject appears in many sources for many reasons.
 * reliable sources: Read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.  In a nutshell, however, what is needed to meet the reliable standard is that the source is under some sort of editorial process.  This could include peer reviewed journals, reputable newspapers (local or national), magazines (again, local or national), trade journals, books published by reputable publishing houses (Random House, lets say, or a University Press).

I always have a few "tests" I apply myself:


 * Does the wikipedia article significantly improve the overall coverage of this subject: If the answer is "yes", then the subject IS NOT NOTABLE.  Simply put, a subject should be notable enough outside of Wikipedia that Wikipedia itself does not make it more notable.  If google turns up the Wikipedia Article itself on the first page of a google search, it probably isn't notable.
 * Does the totality of the press coverage of this subject take less than a few minutes to read. Ideally, a notable subject should have voluminous references on it.  If I can read everything that has ever been written about the subject in like 5 or 10 minutes, then it is not notable enough for a wikipedia article.

I have no idea if the article you are working on meets any of these criteria. Just remember, if you can make the article meet the primary notability criteria i listed above, the article will probably be kept. If you have any more questions, come to my own talk page and ask it there. I will try to help out where I can. --Jayron32 05:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Alexdc. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Alexdc~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)