User talk:LordFarrow

Speedy deletion nomination of Johann Friedrich Lübbering
A tag has been placed on Johann Friedrich Lübbering requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, 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. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome, Sire

 * }

Dolmens
Hey,

I appreciate your contributions and your interest in Demmin's history. You are right, there are plenty of dolmens and barrows around Demmin, and en.wiki only provides poor coverage. I recently made an approach to change that and wrote the article Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which is thought as a general start and a mother article for articles like Lancken-Granitz dolmens, which I wrote before. You are welcome to create articles on further dolmens!

That said, you will need what en.wiki calls reliable sources for reference, and cite them properly. You might want to read E.g. worldlingo is not a reliable source - it's a translation engine, and the translated article you used for reference in the Demmin article is a de.wiki entry, which does not fall into the RS category. For a start, you may want to read through this e-book, which is an excellent source written by an expert, and look through the bibliography at Megaliths_in_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, which contains further books qualifying as RS. The links in Megaliths_in_Mecklenburg-Vorpommern do not necessarily qualify as RS, but contain many links, coordinates and pictures of dolmens in MV - you may be able to retrieve titles of or links to further RSs about dolmens by reading through these links, too.
 * WP:RS (policy: what is regarded RS=a reliable source)
 * Citing sources and Referencing for beginners (how to reference)

Denn man tau! Skäpperöd (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Skäpperöd, I get your point. I used the original de.wiki Demmin entry for a translation (which sounded well composed already - I did however notice the lack of sources), not the worldlingo one. I don't need engines, I am at home in both languages. The worldlingo entry I only referenced since I couldn't find an English article in en.wiki, I wasn't aware it's not considered a reliable source. I am a native Demminer, I learnt about this in school, during local history classes. I will check the sources you've suggested - thanks again for mentioning those, and familiarize myself with wiki requirements. I am not too new to this, but don't do this too often either. LordFarrow (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

Hey again
Sorry for the large welcome template, I only looked at your edit count and somehow missed your registration date. The links might be helpful anyway though.

I asked you a follow-up question concerning the pharmacist story at the article talk page, your help would be much appreciated. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will dig out the Buske reference, yes. LordFarrow (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)LordFarrow

Non-free files in your user space
Hey there LordFarrow, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:LordFarrow. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Johann Friedrich Lübbering for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johann Friedrich Lübbering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Johann Friedrich Lübbering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.– Gilliam (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Gilliam,

Thanks you for alerting me. The article received an OK in 2009. It is deemed to be "[…] within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people.". I do not quite understand why, 7 years into the life of this article, it is to be marked for deletion once more. I cannot locate the correspondence that I had with staff of a related historic society of Franklin County, Missouri as that happened a while back now = in 2009. That society, too, supported the article as being relevant in relation to Missouri's history. If the article was deemed to be "within the scope of, e.a." in 2009 - why would it need to be deleted now? Has it become less relevant? Has the content become less relevant for e.g. students who need to research their local heritage and choose to use Wikipedia to do so? I am very certain that the guidelines Wikipedia follows have not changed so dramatically that something relevant and "within the scope of, e.a." in 2009, is suddenly outside the scope of "WikiProject Biography" in 2016.

Thanks.

LordFarrow (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)LordFarrow