User talk:DavidUnruhe

Speedy deletion nomination of Turbulence: Ideas for Movement


A tag has been placed on Turbulence: Ideas for Movement requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Turbulence
David, I contributed to the Afd. A bit harshly, as I mistakenly thought it was written by an established editor. However, while you said to Anthony "As I tried to make clear in the article itself (and on its talk page), Turbulence has received endorsements from and published contributions by some extremely influential scholars -- many of whom warrant their own Wikipedia pages" I'm not finding much evidence. There were zero WP:RS references in the article itself, and my searching isn't finding anything substantive. I realize it is a new magazine, and it may take time for others to take note of it.

I trust you now have your original work; perhaps when more evidence of WP:N exist, it can be redone.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)