User talk:Buchananj

A tag has been placed on James Buchanan Programmer TechWriter, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, 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 assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on 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.

Also, given that your username is very similar to the name of the subject of your article, you might want to check out how wikipedia views autobiographical edits to articles. Thanks --Aim Here 16:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have speedy deleted the article. Interviewing somebody and hoping you'll become successful are not reasons to write an article about yourself on Wikipedia. Anybody has the potential to become well-known, but we do not have articles about them unless they actually are. -- Necrothesp 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi James. You're perhaps mistaking Necrothesp's or my brusqueness for 'spite'. There's a lot of vandalism, spurious pages, non-notable articles and whatnot to get cleared from Wikipedia, so to save time and energy, you can see a lot of automatic templates being used, and editors might be fairly terse when explaining their actions. None of this is meant personally, and I'm sure you were only trying to improve the encyclopedia, but occasionally the conciseness and bluntness of the language might occasionally offend editors. Mind you, it was a fair bit worse when the term for autobiographical or conflict of interest editing was referred to as 'Vanity'... --Aim Here 17:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)