User talk:ArabellaMarin

Meetups #87, #88, #89, #90
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Deletion discussion about Craig Semetko
Hello, ArabellaMarin,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Arthistorian1977 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Craig Semetko should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Articles for deletion/Craig Semetko.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

.

Hi Arthistorian1977,

Thank you for your comments. I found the word "deletion" to be a very alarming way to say that my citations are not complete. I want to thank you for calling to my attention the fact that the actual article was not being cited and I have now corrected that. I am counting on you to not delete the page as I continue to respond to any errors you may find. I apologize for the errors.

I am signing my reply with.

.

Hello again, I’m writing to let you know that I’ve corrected the date values in the Craig Semetko page. Hopefully, this rectifies any item or items that were found objectionable. If there is something else that needs to be corrected, please let me know immediately so we can fix it and get Mr. Semetko’s page up and running without the “being considered for deletion” box at the top. Thank you so much!

I am signing my reply with.


 * Hello ArabellaMarin. When Arthistorian1977 appeared to start a message thread here, titling it "Deletion discussion about Craig Semetko", he didn't mean "Let us here discuss the possible deletion of this article". He meant instead something like "Over at Articles for deletion/Craig Semetko there is already a discussion of whether to delete this article (as I have proposed); I suggest that you read my proposal carefully and improve the article Craig Semetko so that it will be clear that the criticisms I have leveled at it are no longer applicable."


 * Very briefly, Arthistorian1977's criticism can be summarized as: "The article lacks evidence that reliable, independent sources suggest that Semetko's work is noteworthy." In a bit more detail -- well, I'll quote Arthistorian1977: Semetko "fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE". Click on each of these to see what it means.


 * You are of course entitled to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/Craig Semetko. Indeed, Arthistorian1977 invited you to do just this. If you do, here are two obvious counterarguments ... that you should avoid:


 * "The articles on photographers X and Y don't show that X and Y are notable in any way. They just take photos for adverts and stupid magazines. Contrast that with Semetko, who's had a book published by TeNeues, who's been widely exhibited, and who has been praised by Elliott Erwitt. Yet nobody is questioning the article on X or that on Y. So Semetko is far more notable than what Wikipedia routinely accepts."


 * "Celebrities P and Q have done nothing of note. All they do is hang around in parties, be photographed displaying cleavage and pouting, and appear on junk TV shows. Yet each has an obsequiously detailed article. Semetko has actually done stuff; he's way more notable than P or Q."


 * Don't be tempted to try either of these. You or I could definitively prove either or both, but the appeal would still fail. (See WP:WAX.) Instead, the charge is that the article or its subject "fails both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE". Your job is to improve the article so that it clearly does not fail one or the other (and preferably both). Ideally you'd improve it so radically that Arthistorian1977 would change his mind and retract his deletion proposal; but if you can't do this, then at least you should work to dissuade others from agreeing with him.


 * Therefore please make significant improvements to the article (always citing reliable, independent sources), and in Articles for deletion/Craig Semetko straightforwardly draw people's attention to these improvements. (I'd help you, but I lack the needed sources.)


 * If you contribute a comment to any discussion anywhere, then please sign it as Arthistorian1977 has already explained. Or, to put it another way, by hitting "~" four times in a row. (You can of course see whether this has worked as intended by clicking on "Show preview" and examining the result before clicking on "Publish changes".) -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * PS I have to rush off to work and so can't now do anything with this, but you could derive something from it. However, you'll also need other sources that are at least as good. -- Hoary (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red April Events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging