User talk:Phillygrl

Welcome!
Hello, Phillygrl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Pegasus ArtWorks, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Pegasus ArtWorks


The article Pegasus ArtWorks has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable program. A ton of links but no independent in-depth coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pegasus ArtWorks


The article Pegasus ArtWorks has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable government-funded art project. The only reference with in-depth coverage is a interview-style article in a local paper that reads like it's trying to drum up clients. Not seeing anything substantial in google. PROD removed by IP with comment "The Delaware Division of the Arts, Delaware Media and significant museums consider this program notable. I discovered it through the state run arts organization that considers it a significant program that reaches the entire state of Delaware."

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pegasus ArtWorks for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pegasus ArtWorks 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/Pegasus ArtWorks 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 template from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebuttal:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.137.152 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC) "The only reference with in-depth coverage is a interview-style article in a local paper that reads like it's trying to drum up clients." This program doesn't have paying clients. They are grant funded, serving youth for free. More "clients" would seem to be an added burden here. There would be nothing to gain. The article cited is from a legitimate news source, that frequently covers events across the state of Delaware. Furthermore, this program has been covered and highlighted by Content Delaware (which is also a reputable journalistic organization, not a pay to post company), and is the premiere online Arts Journal in the state of Delaware. They have also been mentioned by the United Way as a Notable Initiative. Furthermore, according to my research, they are serving a larger population then any arts program or organization in the Delaware region, and most arts organizations. I will certainly continue to develop this article, but my personal mission is to highlight the "Notable" arts and non-profit organizations that are not represented on Wikipedia, or not represented well. I have become frustrated by this absence andI know others who have as well. I am not interested in writing about businesses that could pay for articles (and they do-though we don't like to talk about it here). I think there is currently a corporate bias in what is represented as notable on Wikipedia, as well as a lack of actual amateur contributors. Since the mission of Wikipedia, includes "People of all ages, cultures and backgrounds can add or edit article prose, references, images and other media here.[] What is contributed is more important than the expertise or qualifications of the contributor." I would hope that more experienced Wiki authors/editors would offer support rather then suggest deletion as the opening discussion. I appreciate feedback, support or partnership. Maybe a better way to have approached this was to note that it needed more sources.

Note [|Wiki Policy]: check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AFD.

"before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."4

Also Please note: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Consider also:[] Organization of article pages Articles in Wikipedia are loosely organized according to their development status and subject matter.[44] A new article often starts as a "stub", a very short page consisting of definitions and some links.

However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products. ......"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."[]. Your process assumes that preference should be given to larger organizations.

Once again, I will continue to develop this, but in the last 20 minutes I have added several reputable sources simply by Googling. I will continue to do so and I hope that our conversation can become one of friendly discourse, or even constructive feed back, but that concerns start as conversations verses as a threat to remove an article. However, there are now currently multiple, verifiable, in-depth citations that should be sufficient to allow the article to develop over time.