User talk:Catladyface

Speedy deletion nomination of Libraries and the Deaf Community
Hello Catladyface,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Libraries and the Deaf Community for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I declined to delete the article: it does have context, which means that it is possible to tell what it's about. However, it does have some problems: it's written in the style of an essay or school paper, not the colder more objective style of an encyclopedia article. WP articles are expected to summarize information, not present conclusions--it can be a tricky distinction. The first step might be to break up the article into sections. If you need any assistance, please ask  directly  on   my user talk page,  and I'll respond either there or on your talk page in a day or two.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Community Information Databases
Hello, Catladyface. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Community Information Databases, 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. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Status and Advice
This particular article is really just a very incomplete list. It will probably be deleted if you do not expand it with the 7 days. It's a reasonable topic, so I urge you to do so. People move fast around here, so you will find it helps to write fairly complete articles in the first place.  DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Outsourcing and privatization


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Outsourcing and privatization. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Outsourcing. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Outsourcing – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Adult literacy & education


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Adult literacy & education. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Adult education. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Adult education – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As for this article, it will be deleted. It's basically the reprint of directory information from a few librry web pages. We don't do that:Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously; and does not accept material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license   (It is, by the way, not necessary for pages to have a notice to be copyright:  everything published on the internet or elsewhere is copyright to the owner of that content unless specified otherwise.)


 * It might be possible to get permission, but there is no point in doing so--a web site of this sort almost always is unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include. It is therefore always better to rewrite.


 * Please never copy this way from an outside source again, and be absolutely certain that in everything you have previously written, there is not just no copying, but no Close paraphrase. If there is, rewrite that part from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.


 * More generally, as a librarian myself I urge you to read carefully some of our other articles on library topics before starting new articles, and to learn our style by improving existing articles rather than immediately starting new ones. I've noticed you have been doing that also, but I'm not sureall of your additions are necessarily improvements. We avoid phrases like "some say" or other words that imply conclusions or consensus--we base everything only on outside sources, and do not add interpretation or synthesis -- see our policies on WP:Original Research. and WP:SYN. We also avoid pages of directory information, such as the one on Odor policies. The place for this information is the various library websites. A possible article tying them together might be of value, but it should indicate it scope by a proper title, such as "problem patrons in public libraries" or "Patron odors in public libraries" -- though I think neither of these are perfect, they at least indicate the actual subject. It's also usually best to start with articles on specific, not general, topics--such as on particular libraries or particular famous special collctions or famous librarians. You might want to see in particularWP:Wikiproject Libraries for some suggestions.  DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Odor policies


The article Odor policies has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Collection of directory information--not an encyclopedia article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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.  DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Libraries and the Deaf community for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Libraries and the Deaf community is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Libraries and the Deaf community until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)