User talk:ElSussyBaka

Proposed deletion of Wouter Corduwener
Hello, ElSussyBaka

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username VickKiang, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Wouter Corduwener, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. To prevent the deletion, please add a reference to the article. You may remove the deletion tag yourself once the article has at least one reliable source.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 VickKiang  (talk)  02:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The person about which the wikipedia page is a famous personality with significant fame, importance and follwers(455 thousand on youtube). ElSussyBaka (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:POPULARITY. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * there is also significant verifiability as the subject in question has significant coverage in reliable source that are independent of the subject,thus objectively popular/ notable. ElSussyBaka (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Various independant and reliable sources have covered the subject significantly, which are referenced in the article. ElSussyBaka (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Metro is, per WP:RSP, not a RS. The rest are not reliable sources, see WP:RS, as well.  VickKiang  (talk)  05:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Deleted the unreliable sources and added articles from Metro and Daily Record. These probably fall under "it hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious" ElSussyBaka (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Further added a source from TVGid.nl ElSussyBaka (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source you want to use is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it was so obvious- how can a source with no editorial policies be a stellar source? Moreover, I've said numerous times that Metro is unreliable, The reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids. Articles published in the print newspaper are considered more reliable than articles published only on the metro.co.uk website. The newspaper articles were previously segregated online via the metro.news domain and are presently tagged under "metro newspaper" at the metro.co.uk domain. I'm unsure why you would like this generally unreliable source to be included, but it won't help with article retention.  VickKiang  (talk)  20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wouter Corduwener


A tag has been placed on Wouter Corduwener requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 deleted 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. Mccapra (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Wouter Corduwener for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wouter Corduwener 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/Wouter Corduwener 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 until the discussion has finished.  VickKiang  (talk)  02:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please refrain from hijacking pages as you did with Hyperpolyglot. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Note regarding citations to Twitter
Hello! I noticed that in a recent edit you cited a series of tweets. The community guidance for using Twitter as a source in articles can be found at WP:RSPTWITTER. In general, we don't cite tweets except for uncontroversial self-descriptions, though occasional exceptions may apply. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I quoted what was tweeted mentioning exactly what was tweeted under quotation marks. What was tweeted maybe be considered controversial but there is no dispute about the content of the tweets(as I quoted them word by word.) I think the articles needs an aftermath subsection anyways. ~ elsussybaka ElSussyBaka (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)