User talk:GankT19

Speedy deletion nomination of National memorial ride
A tag has been placed on National memorial ride, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of National memorial ride 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 help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JNW (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To reply to your thoughts from the talk page of the deleted article, there are several areas for concern: an article is apt to look like an advertisement or public relations message based on its language and lack of outside sources; it appeared that most or all of the text was copied directly from another website, which is usually a violation of copyright guidelines; if you are closely involved with the subject you are writing about, then conflict of interest is a concern. Before introducing an article, it is helpful to read Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SOURCES, WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:COI. The articles about other non-profit organizations you referred to (the United Way, Salvation Army, and PETA) contain, to varying extents, a more thorough overview of their histories, supported by numerous third-party sources, as opposed to content lifted only from their websites. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National memorial ride
A tag has been placed on National memorial ride, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. mhking (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of National Memorial Ride
An article that you have been involved in editing, National Memorial Ride, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page National Memorial Ride has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asgkm6tzev4). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

National Memorial Ride Canada
Hi. I would suggest that you might want to make your article a section of another article, possibly Canadian Army Veteran Motorcycle Units or some other suitable article, to improve its chances of remaining. If it sticks as a section for while and possibly grows, especially if you get some in depth third-party coverage in the future, it might be split off later. As it stands now, I'm guessing it's likely to be just deleted again, since it's not too different from the previous article. I would also add a sentence about the MP attending; that makes it at least slightly more notable. If you want to try that, I'll be happy to help you format. Station1 (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I have moved the article (see WP:USERFY) to your userspace, it is now located at User:GankT19/National Memorial Ride Canada. The big issue is the lack of substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources. Generally, in order to be considered to pass our inclusion criteria, located at the page WP:N an article needs to clearly demonstrate: Now, lets go through the sources for the latest version of the article, which as I stated, is now located at User:GankT19/National Memorial Ride Canada:
 * Hi thanks for your suggestions. I have been trying to take the advertising out, and yesterdays version of the article had a link to the MPs home page where there is a picture of him attending.  My last article had about 8 references from third party sites about our event, and yet it was deleted without comment.  I looked at the CAV site and a host of others, they are blatant advertisements for either charitable rides or for profit organizations like the CAV.  I would have though with an MP, and Sr Members of DND and Veterans affairs in attendance would have shown this was an event of some kind.  In depth coverage does not exist on the CAV site or half a dozen others.  So what your saying is we need to get a reporter to write an article so we have some legs??  BTW what is the use of the Wikipedi Motorcycle tag if it is ignored by the Admins??  This site does not make any sense.  thanks for the help and allowing me to vent  --GankT19 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would like, I can move a draft copy of the article to a subpage of your user space. It would be out of the article space, and so would have more leniency with regards to being built.  All articles must meet the criteria spelled out at WP:N from the moment they are in the main article space, but documents kept outside of the main space are given a little bit more leeway.  Would you like to have a draft version so that you may work on it?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage This means that the subject of the article is also the subject of other in-depth works, either a book, newspaper article, magazine article, or similar works. This is the most important thing.  The subject requires more than just a one-sentance mention in a newspaper article; basically someone else has to have thought that the subject was worthy of researching and writing about outside of Wikipedia before Wikipedia will accept it as an article.  Wikipedia has a higher inclusion standard that "it exists".  There basically needs to be enough reliable source material to write a substantial article here.
 * Reliable sources See WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources. Basically, if the source is respectable and has editorial control, like a book published by a respectable publishing house, a newspaper or magazine with widespread readership and a reputation for reliability, or a peer-reviewed journal, or perhaps a website that is held to the same level of editorial control.  Stuff that is not reliable is stuff where anyone can publish information, and no one else needs to check up on it, like web forums, blogs, or other self-published stuff.
 * Independant sources means that the source material is independent of the subject themselves. "Official" websites and other self-published texts may be useful in a limited way to add information to an article, but they cannot be used to establish notability, which is about people outside of the subject of the article, with no vested interest in the subject of the article, having written about the subject.
 * National Memorial Ride - Self-published; cannot be used to establish notability.


 * The CAV Cannot find any information at this page. Also, as a self-published page, lacks reliability and independence.


 * Ottawa Valley Ride Schedule Proves that the subject exists, but does not contain any substantial writing. Fails the "significant coverage" criteria.


 * Canadian Legion Magazine Contains a single sentance which mentions the National Memorial Ride, fails the "significant coverage" criteria.


 * Bikers Database Proves that the subject exists, but does not contain any substantial writing. Fails the "significant coverage" criteria.


 * Industry Canada Proves the organization that sponsors the ride exists, does not contain any substantial writing. Fails the "significant coverage" criteria.


 * Ottawa Citizen News paper Article is not really about the memorial ride, but rather about a parade. Contains a single sentance about the ride, does not feature a significant amount of coverage on the ride itself.


 * Ottawa Citizen News paper Contains a single sentance trivial mention giving the dates and times of the ride; does not feature a signicant amount of coverage.


 * Pierre Lemieux Member of Parliament Self-published website; proves the ride exists, but also does not feature any significant coverage.

The deal is, WP:N is not about the writing or content of the article. It is about the subject of the article. There is a very real likelyhood that no one has ever written anything about this ride and published it in a reliable source. If there are books about the National Memorial Ride (and not just mentioning it in passing) which I have missed in my searches, please show those. If there are magazine articles or newspaper articles about the National Memorial Ride (and not just mentioning it in passing) please provide those. As yet, I see no evidence that anyone outside of Wikipedia has written about this subject substantially, so I really am not convinced that, by the rules spelled out at WP:N, Wikipedia needs an article on it right now. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you are saying, unfortunately our Media relations (traditional) sucked. Our presence on the Web to get people to attend was great.  I will see if we can get some of the papers to write a follow on about us. --GankT19 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Us" is a problem. See Conflict of interest.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Us as is The Veterans that organized it, that Rode in it, and will benefit from the money raised. Its a collective term.  I guess I should have said ...get them to write about the event and how cathartic it was to some of the Vets in attendance and how it will help those in hospital or on the road to some sort of recovery.  Try not to see evil in everything I am doing or writing, Im doing it for a great bunch of guys who are putting in a ton of work to help their fellow soldiers.  Its all volunteer, nobody gets one cent out of working on this event.  Looking at some of the other articles on the site I can understand your stance, but it is a new event, without a lot written about it because it is new.--GankT19 (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding references
To answer your question on my talk page: You can add a reference in a number of different ways. The most common is, immediately after the fact you're citing, add " " (no quotes, no spaces). If it's an on-line citation (preferred), the first thing should be the web site, starting with "http:". To make the references show as footnotes at the end of your article, you should add a header named "References" followed by the template "". As an example, on your article, see where I added a ref after the sentence about Pierre Lemieux attending and how it shows at the bottom of your article due to the use of "". That's just the basics, of course; for more details, see Citing sources. Station1 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks, that makes it easy to understand --GankT19 (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)