User talk:EloraC88

Speedy deletion of Scott Hammond (author/speaker)
A tag has been placed on Scott Hammond (author/speaker) 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 person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Scott Hammond (author/speaker)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Hammond (author/speaker), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Scott Hammond (author/speaker). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Re: Note
I appreciate your help...

Everyone else has been very rude...

And kindness is always welcome. Thank you! --EloraC88 (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)EloraC88


 * You are welcome -- I came across the article, did some research and rewrote it in an encyclopedic format. The editors tend to frown upon lots of blog links but they were a bit rude towards you. Thanks for the note and good luck! --Jkorbes (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scott Hammond
Firstly, when I edited your article what I did is called "stubbing". The sections headed "Review" is blatant advertising. No biography has a list of reviews saying how great a person is. Second when you Corrected Killerofcruft's awkward word usage you broke a fundamental rule of talk page etiquette, which is that you do not correct other people's talk comments, if Killerofcruft put "discussion making" then that is what he intended, correcting other people's talk comments (even if littered with spelling and grammar mistakes) is not good practice. Thirdly no one "else has been very rude.." to you, they have simply edited you article to make it meet the purpose of why we are here, to build an encyclopedia, we are not here to advertise a guy's website and his motivational courses. I called the sections I cut out "advertising nonsense" because that is what they were. Others have called them spam because that is what they are. And finally this article has been deleted twice already, before you recreated it you should have asked for help, but it shouldn't surprise you that an article twice deleted is on the chopping block for a third time. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow... If you couldn't already tell I don't know what I'm doing then you clearly haven't been paying attention. But just because I've made mistakes does not justify the fact that you have --indeed-- been rude. If you're trying to be professional in creating a valid encyclopedia then please do so, but professionalism does not describe your behavior. It's great that you believe you were validated in your negativity and unhelpfulness. For the record I contacted several people for advice and thought I had made the proper changes. In the future, if you're going to be rude to someone, be ready to accept when they call you on it. Your word choice may have been accurate (at least in some opinions) but it was far from appropriate. There's a big difference, for instance, between calling someone condescending and calling them pompously holier-than-thou. :) Best of luck in future attempts to maintain an enycyclopedia without losing your impartiality.--EloraC88 (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)EloraC88
 * You posted this and were advised to read up on notability biographies but you still reposted the material. You posted on my talk page and I replied. You keep calling me rude but all I have done is edit the article to remove material not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I am only one of four editors who have voted at the AfD. If you want the deleted article can be placed in your userspace for you to work on, but unless you can offer more proof of notability then the article will be deleted again, in fact the nominator actually did you a favour by putting it to AfD rather than just speedy deleting it for the third time. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was advised, did the reading, and thought I had done it right. I'm sorry if I didn't get it right but I am glad to see that you're working on your congeniality. :) I thought I provided proof of notability, but I'm begining to think that by these standards Mother Theresa was not notable. He's a leading popular speaker who has created a system that has made significant impact in the world of parenting disabled children. I don't understand how that does not qualify as notable. --EloraC88 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)EloraC88

In summation here is Notability (emphasis is mine); I suggest you re-read the guidelines to see why he is not a notable person. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 2) If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 3) Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 4) The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 5) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 6) The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 7) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 8) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)
 * 9) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. (Scott Hammond fails this criteria)