User talk:Jnewcombe

Speedy deletion of Scott Stapleton
A tag has been placed on Scott Stapleton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. BigDunc Talk 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott Stapleton
Do you have a media source to support the assertion that his paper (which, incidentally, was about Bali and had nothing whatsoever to do with India) actually played a role in strategic responses to the Mumbai incident? Because if so, that would make a difference.

The best I can do would be to restore it and then take it directly to AFD for discussion on the grounds that it was a disputed speedy. And if I review the edit history, the first speedy back in August was declined on the basis that you had promised to add additional sources — but you only added one more source, and it didn't make a hugely compelling case for notability either. One speedy that gets declined because of a promise to make good faith efforts to improve the article doesn't mean that the article can never be deleted again. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)