User talk:Sarahcargill

Speedy deletion nomination of Getting Smart by Tom Vander Ark


A tag has been placed on Getting Smart by Tom Vander Ark, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. i kan reed (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Getting Smart by Tom Vander Ark
- SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Constructive criticism
You asked at my talk page for more information about what kinds of sources are needed for an article to not be deleted. As you mentioned there are already thousands of books that have articles on wikipedia. The difference here is that wikipedia has standards of notability and reliable sources for all articles. Fbooks, there are particular standards that wikipedia's community as a whole have adopted these can be found at Notability (books). It's fairly clear that none of the above apply to the article or its subject. One of the most common ways to establish notability is to find newspapers or other major news sources that talk about the publication or release of the book. Blogs, websites, and social media pages are not sufficient for this purpose. If any of these apply, please contact me on my talk page, and I will be happy to help you rewrite the article in a way unlikely to be deleted. It's also relevant that wikipedia has a policy against articles that serve only to promote their subject. Providing context and information is the goal of wikipedia, not just an arbitrary collection of statements. i kan reed (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
 * 2) The book has won a major literary award.
 * 3) The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
 * 4) The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools,  universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
 * 5) The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.
 * Hi Sarah. Ikanreed is simply pointing out policy that makes Wikipedia a non-self-serving and "notability" based resource for encyclopedic information. We actually have a pretty strong issue with folks creating articles for their own organizations, products and selves. I see you are actually the project manager for the publication and a contributing editor, as seen here, which makes this a conflict of interest matter. You can learn more about our policies with that here: Conflict of Interest (quick briefing). Writing articles about things one is closely involved with (i.e. your organization, business, book, band) can sometimes lead to one's account being banned. Again, this is all in the sake of neutrality, non-advertising and notability. Nothing personal! On that note, I'm sorry your first few editing experiences have been tough ones. Perhaps you'll find more pleasure and luck out of contributing on content you really personally enjoy - I write about art and artists...I'm sure you have your own niche and interests :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Getting Smart: How Digital Learning is Changing the World


The article Getting Smart: How Digital Learning is Changing the World has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Book does not appear notable, article lacks reliable third-party sources that demonstrate this. The author being possibly notable doesn't matter, as notability is not inherited, and this article is about a book, not an author.

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. SudoGhost 10:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)