User talk:H2Cfangirl1

Speedy deletion nomination of Mitchell Bonds


A tag has been placed on Mitchell Bonds 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. Accounting4Taste: talk 00:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re the deletion of Mitchell Bonds
I noticed the material you left on the talk page associated with the deleted page, Mitchell Bonds, which I reproduce here for your convenience since talk pages of deleted pages are usually quickly deleted themselves. "I was just wondering why my page, "Mitchell Bonds", got deleted. It was nothing stupid, gibberish, or offensive. I know it was a bit on the short side and I was going to upload a picture. If I expand it more, is there a possibility it could stay open, please? People have posted articles about authors before and I don't see how my article is any different. For anyone wanting to know about Mitchell Bonds, I thought I could provide some insight. The links also give extra information. I thought it would be a good topic that Wikipedia has failed to cover. Even if you don't put it back up, will you please at least tell me why it got deleted? Yes, it was about a real person, but there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about real people. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble. I just thought it'd be a fun topic and I made sure it looked decent before I posted it. -- H2Cfangirl1""

I would be sorry if you kept thinking that you "caused any trouble"; nothing of the sort, and I hope no one else thinks that either. And you didn't contribute anything stupid, gibberish, or offensive; you also did a good job on the links you provided. Essentially what's happening is that there are three basic criteria that every Wikipedia article has to meet. The topic has to be notable, that notability has to be demonstrated by reference to reliable sources, and those sources have to be verifiable. Your contribution ran up against the first one about notability. (You can learn more about all three criteria by tracing the links in this paragraph, or by reading WP:Why was my article deleted?.) Essentially, articles about authors have to be about authors that are considered notable -- unusual, special, different, better than their peers, etc., by expert sources; those would be things like book reviewers writing in magazines and newspapers. It's not enough merely to publish a book, it has to be a book (or an author) that gets a lot of attention -- attention on a widespread level, like across the country, from many different people. Another thing about that attention is that it has to be from expert sources who are impartial. That means that things that an author's publisher says about him are not useful, because they are pretty much biased. (That was the problem with what I remember of the links you provided.) One way of looking at it that I find people grasp easily is, if Mr. Bonds was an athlete, he would have to be competing at the Olympic level, if he was an amateur, or at a fully professional level, like for a major league baseball team, in order to be sufficiently notable to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, and he'd be the subject of a lot of articles by impartial sports writers. So as you can see not many people get that amount of notice.

If you think there are sources of expert opinion about Mr. Bonds that are unbiased and reputable -- not usually things like blogs or forum postings, but more like books and magazines talking about him -- I will be happy to retrieve the deleted content of your article and put it into a "sandbox" page where you can work on it and add those citations. If that's what you want, or if you have any questions about Wikipedia policy or anything at all with which I can help you further, just click on the word "talk" after my signature and leave a message on my talk page with your questions or comments. I'll also watch this page if you want to reply below. I can tell that you are the kind of contributor who does make useful and valuable contributions once you know your way around the boundaries, and I want to help you in any way that I can. If you'd rather get help from someone else, there are a number of ways you can do that; a lot of them can be accessed from the "welcome" message I left at the top of this page. Please don't let this discourage you; you should know that there are lots of people here who will encourage your contributions and help you make Wikipedia a better resource for everyone. Accounting4Taste: talk 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)