User talk:Hroðgar æ Beocwealm

Welcome
I have added a "" template to the article Spirit and Resistance: Political Theology and American Indian Liberation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Walton monarchist89 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My reply to your comments left on the article's talkpage:


 * 1)The book is relatively new and has not yet caught the attention of academia - please see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I accept that the book may well receive such academic recognition in the future, but Wikipedia's business is not to predict what may happen - it's to document the present.
 * 2)The originality and radical nature of the book demands that it be presented to a wider audience - Wikipedia isn't the place to obtain free publicity. Please read WP:NOT.
 * 3)The article fills a need in Wikipedia for articles on Native American Liberation Theology - that's a fair point, and it's true to say that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against certain fields. However, please bear in mind that articles can't be added purely to balance such a systemic bias; the same notability standards apply equally to all articles.
 * I apologise if my comments come over as more aggressive than I intend. For what it's worth, I can tell that you're a contributor who's genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia - and in a couple of years, when it's been reviewed and becomes famous, this book will probably merit an article. Obviously, if you can provide third-party sources now (a couple of online reviews would be sufficient) then it deserves to stay. You were within your rights to remove the prod notice, and I'll wait a couple of weeks for you to improve the article, before (if necessary) adding an articles-for-deletion notice. If you add the third-party sources, it can stay. Walton monarchist89 11:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question from my talk page
It is hard to keep articles about new books in Wikipedia. Your best bet is to cite some book reviews, if any exist. If reviews don't exist yet, the article will almost certainly get deleted. However, you can easily save a personal copy for later uploading (after the reviews have happened, for example) in your sandbox. That way you don't lose your work from the deletion, and you can continue working on the article and improving it while waiting for reviews to come in. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The article George Tinker has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for 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. J Milburn 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:0800636813h.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:0800636813h.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Qst 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:0800636813h.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:0800636813h.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)