User talk:Aspenocean

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 ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Alabamaboy 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Santana 22
The article Santana 22 has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Alabamaboy 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your request for help
I've undeleted Santana 22 so that you can try and revice it. I'd suggest reading the links at the top of this page on how to write a good Wikipedia article. The main problem with your article is it doesn't say why the boat design is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. For more on this, see Notability. Hope this helps. Do be aware, though, that if you can't address this notability concern someone else may try to delete the article. Best, --Alabamaboy 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

response to RfA comments
I responded to your comments on Articles for deletion/The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum. Pete.Hurd 05:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks here as well. Since we're on my page, I'll admit further detail of my memory of the Larry King show. There were several people I knew at the time that got together to watch the show. I think most of the group were skeptics of almost everything, and had never seen this guy interviewed. What was so interesting about the potential show was that Jentzsch was going to give an interview entirely on the spot. That is without a 'do not ask list' or any other kind of control being exerted over the interview. The guy was fairly charismatic and gave an air of authority. You could see why people would follow his lead. If it's the same interview I'm thinking of, Larry even asked him why he put a cover over his coffee when it was on the table beside him. Aspenocean 07:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Articles for deletion/Douglas Berger
Hi – thanks for the message, and I understand your curiosity. As a newbie to the delete button, I spent time carefully comparing the article to WP:PROF and WP:V before I closed the discussion. I felt the arguments for deletion were stronger than the arguments for keeping the entry. If Berger and his body of work are significant and well-known, there should be independent verifications and articles about him and/or his work, and none were included. It's not enough to publish studies and articles as an author, as there are thousands of people who have written articles for journals and other publications, and lots of them are psychiatrists and psychologists. There were several pieces written _by_ him, but nothing written _about_ him or his work. If you disagree and feel I made an error, deletion review will give the article a second chance. Thanks again – Krakatoa  Katie  20:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:Prof - If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are definitely notable "4. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known."


 * -From the first line of WP:V we have "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Easily done.


 * -from Wikipedia:Notability_%28academics%29: Notability of academics we have "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." This point, argued by one of the other keep editors would seem to be proven by the fact that he was published in peer reviewed professional journals.


 * -From reliable sources we have "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."


 * -From the Wiki article Professor we have "a professor's reputation (or lack of it) is bestowed by his/her peers, not by the popular press or the market place." I mention this as another point of view as to why you don't see a lot of secondary coverage outside professional peer reviewed journals. Reputation comes from peer review. Instead of writing summaries of peer reviewed work outside the initial publication of said work, professionals usually cite it in their own work as is the case in Laurence J. Kirmayer's Psychopharmacology in a Globalizing World: The Use of Antidepressants in Japan; Transcultural Psychiatry, Vol. 39, No. 3, 295-322 (2002), which cited "Psychiatric Drug Development in Japan." The editors of Berger's article could have included a list of all the citations made to Berger articles, but it seems likely that other editors would then complain that this was too much trivial information("This is a CV") and the list would be continually growing for an unknowable time in the future.


 * -From the essay Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions we have "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should." This was the main and recurring argument made by the nominator for deletion, and it sounds like you are tending towards this argument as well.


 * The subject's articles which I pointed out in my keep comment all came from peer reviewed journals. In most peer reviewed journals, secondary coverage is included as part of the original article and is provided by the editorial staff of said journals. The articles were significant in number and subject diversity, and the several different peer-reviewed journals wouldn't have published them if they didn't think that was the case. Getting something published there is not as easy as the general public seems to think. If there are doubts as to what peer review means, there is a Wiki article on that as well. I fail to see, given these points, how the one editor's delete discussion which was countered on every point, could be seen as stronger than the valid keep comments of the three other editors. If the articles in question were produced in say The Enquirer instead of reliable third party publications I would find them questionable myself. A bio from a secondary source is not required for this article to exist because primary sources show that the person's collective body of work is significant and well-known (WP:Prof).


 * Having said all this, I do not think I will refer this article to deletion review for various reasons which I will not go into now. I only hope that you take no offence from my disagreement with your point of view, and will have found some useful grain of information in this discussion. I certainly have. My hope is that all admins would go to extrordinary lengths to make sure their most powerful tools on Wiki are properly used. Thanks for talking to me here as well. A lot of admins do not take the time to answer questions as you have. Aspenocean 09:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)