User talk:Terry.booth

I was given a notification of speedy deletion on the article PLUK which I recently created, citing A7; however, I disagree that this entry does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. The organization has been around for over 25 years, and, as noted, assists over 30,000 families. PLUK delivers electronically news and event updates daily to thousands of subscribed Montanans, and its library is often a sole source of information for other entities not only within Montana, but the entire country. This entry also received a notification that it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pluk.org/Who.html . From looking at that page, I can only discern that this is based on that page's introductory sentence, which I really don't think can be reworded any other way as it does succinctly describe what PLUK is in an encyclopedic manner.

Under these guidelines, I would think that the entry on the Philadelphia YMCA is a bit dubious. Other than its mention of the building being listed on the National Register of Historic Places, I really don't see any information which would "indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia".

I really would appreciate any guidance on remedying this issue.

PLUK
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of PLUK, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.pluk.org/Who.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PLUK
A tag has been placed on PLUK requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Xtzou ( Talk ) 18:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help at Talk:PLUK
I have read your comment at Talk:PLUK, in which you say "I really would appreciate any guidance on remedying this issue", and I will try to help. Firstly, as far as the copyright issue is concerned, the notice was, as far as I know, placed only on an earlier version of the article which has been deleted. Since it has been deleted I have no idea whether it differed significantly from the present version, so I can't comment on that. However, as far as the present version is concerned, I agree that any copyright violation is minor, and restricted to the opening sentence. Even so, it is better to avoid even a suggestion of copyright infringement, so I am rewriting the opening of the article.

In order to justify keeping an article you need to provide evidence that its subject is notable enough to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No matter how much good work the organisation may have done, unless it has received such coverage it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. I suggest reading the guidelines on notability and reliable sources.

Your comment about the article on the Philadelphia YMCA is of a kind which is commonly made by editors relatively new to Wikipedia, but it will carry no weight, for two reasons. Firstly, another article which looks similar to an inexperienced Wikipedian may in fact demonstrate more notability (I have not read that article, so I do not know whether this applies in this case). Secondly, there are many articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria, and which may one day be deleted, once someone notices them. The fact that one article does not satisfy our criteria and should be deleted does not justify keeping another one which does not satisfy the same criteria.

As far as I am concerned, I do not know whether PLUK is notable enough to justify keeping an article on it, but I do know that at present the article does not demonstrate that it is. If you would like the article to be kept I strongly encourage you to read the two guidelines I mentioned above, and try to find suitable references to add to the article to demonstrate notability. Finally, please feel very welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any further questions about this. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Terry.booth/PLUK (Parents, Let's Unite for Kids)
A tag has been placed on User:Terry.booth/PLUK (Parents, Let's Unite for Kids) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)