User talk:Teh Janitor

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here!

Your question has been answered at WP:NUH -- Lost(talk) 07:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scuff mark
I've added the "prod" template to the article Scuff mark, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Scuff mark. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Whpq 14:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. One is above - someone proposed that it should be deleted and no one disagreed for more than 5 days so I deleted it per WP:PROD.  But the main reason it was proposed for deletion was because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Your entry was better suited for Wiktionary.  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read WP:NOT and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is a dictionary that you can contribute to, at Main Page.  And if that isn't to your liking, consider Urban Dictionary.  --  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your discussion about this deletion at Help_desk where you said "I do not expect my article to be brought back. I am not asking for that. If the community feels the removal was fair, than I will not disagree.". Two editors gave the link notable which is an official policy editors usually refer to when they say "notable" about a topic. This can greatly differ from what people outside Wikipedia would call "notable" (or your formulation "noteworthy"). The two editors didn't know your article but just pointed you to the policy. Per WP:PROD you were allowed to prevent this proposed deletion by removing the prod template within the 5-day period. You can also ask for undeletion now per WP:PROD and WP:DRV. The requirements for undeleting an article deleted per WP:PROD are low and your request would probably be followed (I'm not an admin and cannot undelete articles). The "community" has not really evaluated an article unless it has been at WP:AFD which yours hasn't. It may get there if it's undeleted but then you can comment on deletion arguments and give your own arguments. You can add an article to your watchlist to spot edits, including proposed deletions. I hope you stay with Wikipedia regardless of the outcome. PrimeHunter 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You also can bring an article into your user space (for example, as User:Teh Janitor/Scuff mark), and work on it. I'm not convinced there is enough information that meets WP:RS on this topic to make it worthwhile, but if you'd like further information on how to do this, drop me a note.  John Broughton  |  Talk 20:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In view of WP:NOT paragraph Instruction manuals, you might also be interested in wikiHow . PrimeHunter 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion question
Hello Teh Janitor. I'm so sorry that I didn't get back to you regarding your query at the help desk. I somehow managed to miss your post on my talk page with your identity and only became aware of it with your reminder.

So I have made myself familiar with the situation and this is how it happened. You pretty much completed your version of the article on 31 July 2006. It remained in that state until 21 December 2006 when User:Whpq happened upon the article and decided to propose it for deletion using the WP:PROD process. His justification was:


 * The article is a combination of a dictionary definition and how-to guide. After the removal of the how-to sections, all that is left is a dictionary definition.  So in total, the article is being prooposed for deletion for WP:DICDEF and WP:NOT.

To be fair to that user, this is a pretty good justification in policy. I'm not sure I would have tagged it as such myself - and agree that there is a valid argument that it could have remained as a stub. However, its difficult to see how such a stub could evolve into a bigger article without turning into a how-to guide, or whether there is enough source material to make such an article. Anyway, 7 days later User:Wknight94 - consistent with prod policy - deleted the the article with the justification:


 * (Expired prod)

So, in review, the editors involved in the deletion actually followed policy pretty well. Where did the process fail you? I suppose the fact that the article was stable for 5 months before deletion does mean that you weren't able to oppose the prod in time. However, User:Whpq did leave a note on your talk page, as he was supposed to, so I guess it was just unfortunate you didn't get the message until too late. Had you done so, the proposal would have went to the community to comment on. To be honest, I don't know if the article would have survived at WP:AfD anyway. I guess the deleting editor could have moved the article to Wiktionary for you. However, admins have an unbelievable amount of duties to wade through, and it just isn't feasible for them do move articles to other projects. Of course, you could move it there yourself (and I can salvage the content for you if you don't have a copy anywhere else). Therefore I'm not sure really what else could have been reasonably done to make the process less biting for new editors (apart from not tagging the article for deletion in the first place).

You touch upon a wider concern in your discussion, about what is noteworthy and what is not. You make a very good point:


 * "Let me ask this, are aglets noteworthy? I do not tend to think so, yet Wikipedia has an article on them."

It is difficult to understand why your article was deleted yet this is here. To be honest, part of it may simply be luck. If someone proposed this article for deletion, I'm not convinced it would survive. It may also be how the article is worded. Things that have relevance to popular culture tend to be given greater importance here (rightly or wrongly). Perhaps if your article discussed the importance of scuff marks in terms of the media it would have been kept. Who knows. Defining notability is a real challenge here, and we clearly don't always get it right. If you are interested in this, you can always participate in establishing our policies on the subject at WP:N.

So, in summary, I have to say that I probably wouldn't have proposed your article for deletion myself (there is a hell of a lot of much worse content out there I would rather spend my time dealing with!), but it is difficult to find fault in the process the editors followed in tagging and deleting. You could request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV, but I wouldn't have much confidence in it succeeding, to be perfectly frank. While I do sympathize, I would simply advise to try and not take it personally and to continue to contribute. I would be happy to work with you in any future articles you create to help guide you, thereby hopefully ensuring this sort of thing wouldn't happen again. I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful, but do let me know if I can be of further assistance. Rockpock e  t  08:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)