User talk:Wannabesmartguy

Speedy deletion nomination of History of Wingspan Editors


A tag has been placed on History of Wingspan Editors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. E. Fokker (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] I was able to establish some context with the link you provided, however I deleted the article anyway because it failed to establish or even claim the notability of the subject. It's fairly unlikely that the staff of a college newspaper is a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, it would need multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability and verify the article content. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of History of Wingspan Editors


A tag has been placed on History of Wingspan Editors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Filing Flunky (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment left here by a year ago still applies now. You should also note that publishing names of living persons who are not public figures and not notable enough for their own Wikipedia articles is not allowed unless the claims made about that person are attributed to reliable sources. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
How the heck the Wingspan article itself has survived so long beats me - student publications are notoriously non-notable, and that one doesn't even give any references (see WP:RS). A list of the previous editors is certainly non-notable - especially when unreferenced. If you want to get it online free, try AboutUs or LinkedIn. Or Facebook or MySpace. It's not material for an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)