User talk:Rotsap

There is no lack of notability on the behalf of DC Barah. Check out razorsharpe.net or e-mail joblanco@ xlibris.com

If You feel I'm wrong, please say so here. Rotsap (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. —C.Fred (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OOPS
I'm sorry C Fred. I am just learning about the Wiki Way of things. I suppose it would have been better for my article submission if I'd spent some time in the sandbox. That's what I get for trying to come out here and wing it. Grrr! Miserable first effort too many mistakes. Quote me in the advise section for others in the helps and tutorials. Went to revert it but seems deletion nomination is back.(blushing)Rotsap (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article DC Barah, Author., you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 06:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Some editing guidelines in general
First, remember that any user can edit in good faith. That includes tagging articles for maintenance or for deletion. One does not need to be an administrator to nominate an article for deletion, although only administrators can delete articles.

Second, remember that the core guidelines for articles are notability and verifiability. The subject of an article must be demonstrated to be significant/important enough to have an article about them, and the claims in the article, especially claims of notability, should be backed up by reliable sources. It is a little bit of a chicken-and-egg situation, as one of the definitions of notability is a subject that has gotten significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Significant coverage is a full story or large portion of one, and not just a passing mention or directory listing. Independent sources are ones not related to the subject. Writing by the subject, subject's company, subject's publisher, subject's family, or anybody else with a similar close relationship to the subject is not independent.

Finally, vandalism is defined in a nutshell as a bad-faith edit. Some vandalism is clear-cut, such as changing birthdates to nonsensical figures or writing blatant insults about the subject. If an edit is made in a bona fide attempt to improve an article, it's not vandalism. As a general rule, tagging articles for improvement is not vandalism; the exceptions would be clear, like tagging Stephen Harper's article with a Notability template. —C.Fred (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As a rule of thumb, a pen name refers to the author and is not a separate entity, just be an alternate name (e.g., Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain). For a character/alter-ego to be a separate entity, it would need to be clearly distinct from the performer, (e.g., Paul Reubens and Pee-wee Herman). —C.Fred (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An Appeal of Good Sense?
I'm still contesting that "Keep" should be the decision for DC Barah, Author's nomination for deletion for these reasons, which, I believe adequately address the issues raised:


 * It is weak to argue notability simply because a search engine does not turn up favorable results or at least to say inconclusive so benefit of doubt should be allowed if only because it's good business and after all who is hurt by keeping a few words about someone especially when that someone is a publisher.


 * No conflict of interest for Wikipedia and as far as my being the one submitting the article in question still none exists as I have only stated that DC Barah is the Pen-name of Paul George. It's ambiguous to my relationship to the facts and can easily be verified by visiting razorsharpe.net and following the links to DC Barah.


 * Lastly, I have obeyed all the rules: I have 1. been cautious in the creation and editing of this article to avoid embellishments, errant statements or self promotion. I have 2. participated in discussions -AT LENGTH- regarding this edit.  I have 3. provided sufficient links with which to validate all content within this article.

If there is more I can do to make this article better please be so kind as to let me know.Rotsap (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Our definition of notability states that the subject of an article must be the subject of non-trivial coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources (see WP:GNG). So if a search engine "does not turn up favorable results," then by definition the subject fails to meet our inclusion guidelines. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page DC Barah, Author. has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://dcbarahon.blogspot.com. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)