Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/MonteBoesen

Case Filed On: 15:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:Yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Vandalism The pages on this item are absolutely legitimate and were posted in the hope of informing and using my full name in the hope of making acquantances with other family members.  These pages were deleted for unknown reasons.  I am a newbie and may have done something incorrectly, but was not informed.  I have e-mailed Youngamerican but as of yet have received no reply.  As I understand it, people can go though Wikipedia and delete whatever they think will not be contested in five days and damage much work with no repurcussions.  I am offended that this can occur.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer:I have e-mailed Youngamerican but as of yet have received no reply.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer:Have I done anything incorrectly? How can I easily replace the pages which were deleted?

Discussion:
Sadly, your page seems not to be "legitimate", as you say, at least to me (someone else's opinion can be different, of course). The problem is that the article was not encylopaedic and Youngamerican deleted it. Then, the undeletion was made to give you another opportunity. What is expected from a WP article? Well, first, things that are notable, topics that have some relevance. Obviously, that is a very relative term, but there's easy way to check that: see how much information there is on the topic (e.g. in Google, books, newspaper, etc.). If there is a reasonable amount of information you can use to write the article, do it. Of course, what "reasonable" means can be very subjective and that's something that should be discussed to reach consensus among the users. As yourself say to be a newbie, I recommend to read WP:N and also, maybe, enter in the discussion that is held there. You surely will learn a lot and meet people that will help you more as I can do. Yours, --Neigel von Teighen 11:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been undeleted since there was an objection to speedy delete and is now restored. This appears to be what was requested. The undeleting administrator noted that the undeletion is not permanent and the article may be proposed for deletion again if appropriate sources aren't provided establishing attribution and notability. Suggest making use of this time to strengthen the article and address the concerns that have been raised. This may be all advocacy can accomplish for the time being. Please feel free to ask for help about how to find sources and what is needed to enable the article to be kept permanently. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed case since undeletion of article was what had been requested. --Shirahadasha 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accepted by Shirahadasha 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)