User talk:Gringomaligno

Hi,

Just following up your email inquiry about the deleted page Eddy Lapp.

The reason for the deletion is that Wikipedia isn't a repository for all matters and all people. It limits itself to matters that seem to be "significant" (I'll describe that and link where you can read and see if Eddy Lapp fits this or not). Essentially the world is full of people who are briefly or somewhat in the media for one reason or another; and every one of them has someone who insists they are important or valuable, or that people are interested in them. To be in Wikipedia there needs to be evidence that the person meets our criteria for "notability", which is simply the term we use for inclusion. Eddy Lapp's page was deleted because there was no evidence from the page in 2011, that he actually met our notability criteria for people. That's either because 1/ he doesn't (or didn't), or 2/ because he does (or did) but the evidence wasn't visible when checking the article back then.

There are two or 3 pages worth reading on this. Try these first.
 * Basic notability policy and explanation
 * Notability noticeboard - a summary of "how to work out if a topic or person is notable" and a place to ask if you want further opinions (see collapsed section at the top "Quick introduction to common criteria")
 * Notability (people) - our more specific guidance how these work, for articles about people. (The general principles still hold, this adds some ideas how they apply)

When you've read these, the questions to ask yourself are, "what evidence exists that the wider world has taken some kind of historical or enduring notice of Eddy Lapp". For example I would be asking myself things like:
 * Did something significant come from his actions, enough that he becomes of enduring significance in his own right (and where are mainstream references or media or other citations or links to prove it?)
 * Is his case being analyzed by authors after this many years?
 * Was it briefly in the media?
 * Was it usual media ripples that all media stories get, or some kind of more significant coverage?
 * Did major media outlets cover his life story or case repeatedly or enough to show he is seen as significant in his own right?

In each case I'd look for links or other coverage in what we call "reliable sources" - meaning ones with a reputation that can be assumed to do fact checking and not write recklessly. For example personal blogs or partisan pages or activist causes would not be evidence of genuine "significant" coverage for Wikipedia's purposes, but demonstrably dispassionate media such as major newspapers, international coverage, legal or social analysts, or the like might well be.

I haven't researched this person so I can't say if this coverage would exists or not, only that it didn't visibly exist in the article when the page was looked at in 2011, and that this is the sort of thing that others will want to check if asked to review it. Google and especially Google news (choose "more" and "archives" or "all news") would be a usual start to search.

See how you go on that. If you want to post or ask anything, post it below and add the text to a new section on my talk page (User talk:FT2) so I notice it. FT2 (Talk 01:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)