User talk:Annerobe

Speedy deletion of Airborne March
A tag has been placed on Airborne March 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 indicate 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 page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Zim Zala Bim talk  22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Airborne March
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Airborne March, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Airborne March
I have nominated Airborne March, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Airborne March. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Zim Zala Bim talk  17:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Airborne March
Annerobe, I have argued to keep the article. However, some independent sources would help tremendously towards this. I have added a few recent ones. Are there more, in books or in newspapers? Regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To Malcolmx15
Thanks for your efforts to keep the article. What independent sources would you prefer? The Battle of Arnhem is a historic fact, the loss of 1700 (mainly) British soldiers is a historic fact, the existence of the Airborne Cemetery where these soldiers are buried is a fact, and so on and so forth. The Airborne March is an officially recognized (by British Government/Ambassador in The Netherlands)commemorative march. The Chairman of the organizing committee has recently been awarded an OBE for his efforts in this matter by the British Ambassador Mr. Lyn Parker. The Airborne March is being held for the 62nd time this year, a fact. Over 30.000 take part from 17 different countries, a fact. These figures orginate from the organisers. Wikipedia contains several commemorative events, so why not this one? Furthermore, as I stated on the discussion page, I thought Wikipedia rules and regulations apply worldwide. So an article accepted on the Dutch Wikipedia should have the same content as an article on any other Wikipedia. Or am I mistaken? Maybe, because I am new to Wikipedia, I make/have made beginners errors. Sorry. Please help me out here. --Annerobe (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have caught up with you at last! Clearly, there are differences between nl.wiki and en.wiki. The encyclopedia records topics that are notable, it is the same on nl.wiki, yes? I'm sure it must be. Here it is also necessary to demonstrate that the topic meets en.wiki's criteria of notability. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The best way of doing this is to show that the subject has been written about in sources that are independent of the subject and have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Good quality newspapers and books are best and I'm sure that much has been written about the March over the years (I have added a few articles that have written about the March to the article). There must be more! Is that OK?  Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)