User talk:Tallstop

Notability of Jim Rumph
A tag has been placed on Jim Rumph requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  brew crewer  (yada, yada) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Jim Rumph
I stand by my decision that the article did not show anything resembling encyclopedic notability of the subject at the time of deletion. That being said, there is currently nothing preventing recreation. Before you do so i would recommend you read Your first article. You should also gather better sources than a web page claiming their is little to no information available about the subject to establish the required verifiability of the article. --Allen3 talk 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The key hurdles that you need to address are Verifiability and No original research. Wikipedia is not equipped to perform proper vetting and fact checking of material and as a result instead relies upon information already being published in reliable sources such as newspapers, journals, and books from reputable publishers.  On-line sources can be convenient but are not required.


 * You should also understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that its purpose is to summarize existing published knowledge and not to serve as a forum for new information. If you are having to use personal knowledge and interview results to build an article then you are conducting original research and your article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Allen3 talk 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)