User talk:Averma95

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Averma95! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 04:24, Thursday, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alisa Reynolds


The article Alisa Reynolds has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. "References" consist of brief mentions and lack in-depth articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dogsix (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chef Dee


A tag has been placed on Chef Dee, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yoli Ouiya


A tag has been placed on Yoli Ouiya, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. bonadea contributions talk 11:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hi Averma95, I know that it's no fun to have articles tagged for deletion, and it can feel as if Wikipedia is nothing but a maze of rules and regulations and hoops to jump through. However, the policy on keeping to a neutral point of view when writing an article is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia. In the case of Yoli Ouiya, every single sentence is promotionally phrased, and the text reads more like a personal webpage than an encyclopedia article. If you use the Article Wizard, you will get some input on how to write in a more neutral manner, and you can also ask the friendly and experienced editors at the tea house discussion board for advise. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 11:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Catrisa "Cat" Turner
Hello, Averma95. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Catrisa "Cat" Turner, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 Onel 5969  TT me 18:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Some advice
Hello, I noticed you've been rather enthusiastic here. Since you seem rather new, I very much appreciate your enthusiasm, and I'm sure the nominations for deletion are a bit overwhelming. So, a bit of advice on what you've been doing, and how you might have more success with it: That's probably a lot to digest. You're welcome to ping me if you have any questions, about the above or otherwise. I hope your initial issues won't discourage you from having another go at it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the references you use need to be reliable. That generally means they need to have a reputation for accuracy, and be fact-checked and editorially controlled. Some examples of reliable sources would be reputable newspapers, magazines, and academic journals. Blogs, editorials, interviews, personal sites, and the like generally do not qualify.
 * To demonstrate notability, those reliable references (several of them) need to cover the subject of the article (directly, not something related to them) in reasonable depth and detail. Blurbs, mentions, and name drops don't count.
 * The articles contained promotional content. We don't allow promotion of anyone or anything. Rather, articles must present facts verified by reliable references in a way that's neutral in both tone and content. If most or all of an article is promotional in tone or content, it is subject to immediate deletion.
 * This also means we don't permit editorials, like "Despite his acknowledgement about limited access and representation for women of color in the culinary industry (in a rather sexist and racist manner)" (the parenthetical editorial should not appear), in another article, "This incidence is an example of a microaggression that demonstrates how female chefs of color are often othered." and "These reductive stereotypes act as a means of social control to deter black women from accessing positions of power." These interpretations aren't directly supported by a reference, and seem to be your commentary on the subject. We never insert our own commentary into articles, we just present facts and let the reader decide how they should be interpreted. If, on the other hand, a notable and reliable source has a view on something, we can often present that, but rather than presenting it as plain fact in Wikipedia's voice, we would attribute that analysis or opinion to whoever said it. So "The ACLU stated that the Example Act is unconstitutional (cite to ACLU)", not "The Example Act is unconstitutional. (cite to ACLU)"
 * Another issue with the above is that you attributed a quote, first, to an unnamed individual (we generally would prefer to know the exact provenance of a quote). More seriously, though, that quote didn't even appear in the reference you cited for it. When you cite a reference, that reference must directly and specifically back the facts attributed to it. Synthesis or "reading between the lines" of a source is not allowed, we present the facts the references do.
 * I strongly suggest using the draft process for newer editors. Creating an appropriate article on the first edit (which is the requirement when an article is put straight into the encyclopedia) is a challenge even for experienced editors. The draft process gives you much more breathing room to develop the new article, and lets you seek feedback once you think it's ready. When put directly into the encyclopedia, inappropriate articles are subject to deletion. Also, another good way to gain experience is to improve existing articles rather than jump right into trying to find appropriate subjects for new ones.
 * Articles are not a platform for activism of any type.

BLP warning
Please read our biographies of living persons policy. It is absolutely unacceptable to call a living individual "racist and sexist" with no referencing to back that up. We take BLP issues very seriously and repeated violations of this policy, or further reinsertion of the same material, will lead to a block from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)