User talk:Larryamon

A Work in Progress radio drama
A Work in Progress radio drama has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review What Wikipedia is not and Notability for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of A Work in Progress (radio)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article A Work in Progress (radio), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Unsourced article on obscure radio program -- no articulation of notability

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. HrafnTalkStalk 12:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Christian Walk Alive


A tag has been placed on Christian Walk Alive requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. red dogsix (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability
I'm assuming it was you posting on the talk page. Please read WP:GROUP or WP:CORP, whichever is appropriate. Then read WP:RS about reliable independent sources. Wikipedia is not insulated, but is is also not all-encompassing. We cannot cover everything, so we restrict by notability and we assess notability largely by coverage in RS that demonstrates the notability. Own sites may on occasion be used for backing up indisputable info, but can never show notability (for us, at least - and remember it's our field and our ball...). Peridon (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"remember it's our field and our ball." That's the attitude that's the problem with wikipedia and it's editors. I was falsely under the impression that it was an open community where everyone could and was welcome to contribute. Not that this means no rules but that it was open to expanding knowledge and being a source for the world. Notability really can be an arbitrary thing. Wikipedia can do whatever it wants and should, but if they want to be an open community, the "my ball" philosophy is a serious obstacle. My mistake if I misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Best wishes.


 * In a way it's an open community, but there are rules. Notability is arbitrary - but how else can we avoid articles about Fred Bloggs's left big toe, or Tiddles the cat that lives at 49 Acacia Avenue, Little Twittering? The content rules have been made by the community. About the only 'imposed from above' content rules concern things like copyright, and certain illegal things that are banned in most countries, which we agree with anyway. Wikimedia provide the field - we mark it out and keep the ball inflated. Most people are welcome to contribute (excepting certain that the community have found to be more trouble than they are worth. But that doesn't mean anything goes. You are welcome to post - but we insist on referencing by the system found to be the best so far. As in science, things are continually being reviewed, and the rules today are fairly certainly not the same as they were in 2004. They've changed since 2008 when I started here. If you disagree with the rules, there are discussion boards where policies are reviewed and changed. Become a member of the community. Peridon (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You make pretty good points and I largely agree that what you say makes sense. However, I think you use the fred's left toe article a little too bluntly. I don't think it exactly applies here. Sure the topic isn't as notable as it could be and you maybe you are correct in that it might not be notable enough. However, even if the rules aren't from on high they can be imposed by moderators who in effect close down the openness even more. Not trying to argue just sharing an opinion. Thanks for your time and help. larryamon
 * To do the sig, type ~ which does it with the date/time stamp. Peridon (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)