User talk:BookwormBuckinghamshire

Welcome!


Hello, BookwormBuckinghamshire, 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 messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Vanjagenije (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

Deletion discussion about Ghost Soldier of Green Park
Hello, BookwormBuckinghamshire,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Ghost Soldier of Green Park should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Ghost Soldier of Green Park.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. 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.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Notability
Hey, just kind of wanted to kind of explain why the page is likely to be deleted. The long and short of it is that this specific ghost lacks coverage in reliable sources. I do note that you're here to add information that is in obscure books. I would like to ask that you approach this with extreme, extreme caution. The problem with using obscure (likely out of print) books are many. First off, if the book is obscure then that limits the ability of other people to verify the information that lies within it. This can lead to a lot of people questioning if the book is reliable, especially if it's a fairly unknown publisher. This doesn't mean that the books can't be used as a reliable source, but they will run the risk of being questioned quite frequently unless it's by a publisher that is known to have extremely, extremely high standards (ie, Yale University's publishing arm). Sometimes someone can get by somewhat on name value, but even then we have to ensure that it's not a WP:SPS (self-published source) and that there was some sort of editorial oversight. Secondly, we have to be careful about the type of book. Not all books are created equal and something is not automatically notable enough for inclusion just because it was written about in a book. This mostly falls in under the whole thing with publishers, but you've still got to be careful about this. Some books are written purely for entertainment value and as such, the editorial oversight is mostly for things such as grammatical errors. Even then this doesn't automatically mean it can't be used since we can use it to show notability on a pop culture level, but it should be as a last resort and shouldn't be the only thing used as a source. Finally, the other problem with using obscure books is that often the material contained within is equally obscure and not exceedingly well known outside of the book and the immediate local area. We must have coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) to show that something is notable. This usually means at least 3-4 sources over a fairly good length of time, although in some instances some subjects may need more. It depends on the strength of the sources and what the sources are saying.

For example, if I wanted to write about a ghost, I'd probably need more than 3-4 sources and I'd have to pull on at least one academic source and some news sources. This kind of leads me into the paranormal group site you listed: stuff like that is almost always never usable as a reliable source. Part of this is because they're almost always self-published, but there's also the issue of verifiability. Unfortunately there are sites that will post things in a certain light to promote their viewpoint, either as a believer or a skeptic, and sometimes they're not even really aware that they're doing this. I'd really like to recommend that you run sources through WP:RS/N, a noticeboard where people can look at sources to decide if they're usable or not.

Also, I'd like to caution you that when you write an article about something, the topic should be the main focus of the article. Writing about other things can help sometimes, but in Ghost Soldier of Green Park you wrote a lot about other ghosts and most of the sources were actually about the other ghost. Please understand that any coverage for other ghosts does not translate into notability for other ghosts, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by them haunting the same location. To be honest, the best course of action in this instance would be to see if you can find coverage about the ghosts in reliable sources and then maybe adding a small subsection to the main article for Green Park. Most paranormal activities rarely attract attention in places we'd consider to be a RS, so we usually include it in articles about the location itself (assuming the location has enough to pass notability guidelines) if we can find coverage in reliable source to justify a subsection. (We still have to have coverage to justify the section.) I'd say that your best bet is to use the noticeboard and to start proposing a new subsection in the talk pages of the articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)