User talk:MiskaVuorio

Deletions
Hi Miska, and welcome to Wikipedia. You asked on fiwiki about the deletion of the Genbukan article. deleted the page after a proposal by which was made on 26 September. The reason for the deletion proposal was the lack of notability and independent sources. If you want to contest the deletion, the article can be undeleted and discussed at Articles for deletion (typically a week of discussion, after which an administrator decides whether the article should be kept or deleted). For the article to be kept, it would have to be demonstrated that the organization has been covered in reliable third-party sources.

As for Shōtō Tanemura, that was already discussed here and deleted by since no evidence of coverage in independent sources was demonstrated. If you have sources to demonstrate the notability of that individual, let me know and we'll discuss what to do next.

Don't hesitate to ask on my talk page if something is not clear. The article deletion rules are a little complicated here, although there is good reason why they have evolved that way :) If you need help just let me know. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again! On the English Wikipedia it's customary to use English in all discussions, but I'll provide a Finnish translation below so we can sort this out more easily :) By the way, email can be sent on the page Special:EmailUser/Username (for example, here for me), but it only works if you've specified a working email address in the preferences.
 * When reading the AfD it's important to understand that what the participants are questioning is not Tanemura's achievements per se, but rather whether they have been covered in reliable external sources. Reliable sources mean publications by people knowledgeable but independent about the subject (be it books, journals, web sites etc). The purpose of Wikipedia is to contain reliable, verifiable information, so the facts in the article have to be based on independent sources. For example, the Genbukan article was sourced solely to the website genbukan.org, which of course is by no means independent of the subject. (As a comparison you can think that were I to write an article about myself and use "jafeluv.com" as the only source, a reader would have no way of assessing the reliability of the information, since anyone is free to write whatever they will on their own web site.) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Translation:
 * Moi taas! Englanninkielisen Wikipedian keskustelut pitäisi käydä englanniksi, mutta jätän alle suomenkielisen käännöksen että saadaan homma helpommin selvitettyä :) Sähköpostia voi muuten lähettää sivulla Special:EmailUser/Käyttäjänimi (esimerkiksi minulle voi lähettää täältä), mutta se toimii vain jos olet määrittänyt asetuksista itsellesi toimivan sähköpostiosoitteen.
 * Poistokeskustelua lukiessa on tärkeää ymmärtää, että keskusteluun osallistuneet käyttäjät eivät suinkaan kyseenalaistaneet Tanemuran saavutuksia itsessään, vaan ainoastaan sen, ettei niistä ole kirjoitettu luotettavissa ulkopuolisissa lähteissä. Luotettaviksi lähteiksi luetaan ulkopuolisten asiantuntijoiden kirjoittamat julkaisut (kirjat, lehtiartikkelit, verkkosivut, ym.). Wikipedian tarkoitus on sisältää ainoastaan luotettavaa, tarkistettavaa tietoa, joten artikkelin tietojen on perustuttava luoteettaviin lähteisiin. Esimerkiksi Genbukan-artikkeli oli lähteistetty yksinomaan genbukan.org-sivustolle, joka ei ymmärrettävästi ole missään muodossa erillinen artikkelin kohteesta. (Vertailun vuoksi kuvittele että kirjoittaisin itsestäni artikkelin ja käyttäisin lähteenä sivua "jafeluv.com" – aiheesta tietämättömälle lukijalle olisi mahdotonta arvioida tiedon luotettavuutta, koska omalle sivustolleenhan saa kukin kirjoittaa periaatteessa mitä lystää.) Terv. Jafeluv (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Genbukan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genbukan 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/Genbukan 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. jmcw (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)