User talk:Lyra11

Speedy deletion nomination of Richmond Art Collective
Hello Lyra11,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Richmond Art Collective for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Can you inform me of what qualifies as importance? I would imagine a fully referenced article on an art exhibition space that hosts regular shows and has local news coverage would qualify as important. Then again I may be missing something as a relatively new Wikipedia editor who is looking to add information about local institutions in Spokane, WA.

Thanks for your 'speedy deletion'. I really feel supported and will be sure to continue adding articles about organizations relevant to my community. I feel very welcomed.

Lyra11 (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Notability
I saw your message on a talk page that you had created for an article that doesn't any longer exist. I didn't delete that article, but you should read the following regarding writing an article here.
 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. The organisation's own website isn't an independent third party source, nor is the Spokesman.com site which is interviewing one of the founders, again not independent.
 * The notability guideline for organisations and companies is actually quite clear. It has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

Also note the following general guidance, I'm not necessarily suggesting that you have infringed these rules
 * you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
 * If you have a conflict of interest when writing this article, you must declare. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for the collective, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

I'm sorry that you have felt unwelcome here, but you don't help yourself if you don't read our policies or just ignore them. If you don't understand our policies, just ask, don't plough on regardless. I'm pinging since you posted on his talk page. He only nominated the article for deletion, so contesting the deletion there is pointless since the deleting admin wouldn't have seen it.

Before attempting to post an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above

You already have a sandbox version of the text that I've moved to Draft:Richmond Art Collective, the recommended location, so there is no need to restore the deleted article as a draft since one exists. I suspect that the collective probably just doesn't meet our notability criteria as described above, and we can't accept your own criteria. If you think the gallery does meet our notability criteria, make sure you include hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding and expenditure, awards and independent coverage in  national newspapers or TV

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Richmond Art Collective


Hello, Lyra11. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Richmond Art Collective".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)