Talk:Sharon Sergeant

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Please see WP:REFB and WP:EL to learn how to format external links. --triwbe (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resume tag

The resume tag is present because it is seems to be a list of things you would include in a press release, or a....resume. Please read about notability, wp:external links and wp:reliable sources. Why are her "interests" and a bare list of her previous positions included?

A link/article should not be given if it has only a minor, trivia mention of the subject. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, it could well be because I have not finished the article. With this in mind, and as advised by another ed/admin, I posted the 'under construction' template in the (obviously erroneous) hope that I would be allowed to get on with it uninterrupted. Some of us are unable to spend hours a day polishing and finishing articles and, given that the article in question was started relatively recently, I would have thought that is was only polite to cut the author of that article some slack as regards time, before festooning it with templates.

I will be further editing and improving the article as and when time allows. Thank you. AndreaUKA (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you don't like other editors in this collaborative project following the guidelines of Wikipedia while working with your articles, perhaps in the future you will consider this (from Wikipedia:Your first article.) -

Consider creating the article first in your user space As a registered user, you have your own user space. You can start your new article there, on a subpage; you can get it in shape, take your time, ask other editors to help work on it, and only move it into the "live" Wikipedia once it is ready to go. To create your own subpage, see here. When your new article is ready for "prime time", you can move it into the main area.

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

No, no no, of course I don't mind other editors collaborating etc, that's the whole point of WIKI I thought. I did think though (and was informed, as I mentioned) that if I posted the 'underconstruction' template it would give me a breathing space. Still, I do see your point re the resume aspect, and have attempted to correct/overhaul. I've written quite a few articles for WIKI now, and have never been advised to create them first on my subpage thus far. However, it's not a bad idea, so I'll certainly consider it on my next one (have to say though, that I've seen hundreds of articles on WIKI more deserving of deletion than my Sergeant one). Thanks.

Peace - I like Bob Dylan too :-)AndreaUKA (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the underconstruction tag text, it applies more to deletion. The tags I inserted, if addressed, will improve the article. Regarding "hundreds of articles more deserving of deletion" - I agree that there are some out there. In a project with this huge scope, there are bound to be a few that make it through. Personally I try my best to take care of ones that do not meet guidelines such as notability. You are free to do the same as well. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know I am, and I have read the notability guidelines. I do feel strongly that Ms Sergeant fulfills the notability criteria both on the notability page and the notability(academics) page. She is extremely well known and highly respected in her field and is linked to people like Lipstadt, Fitzpatrick and Waltzer. I have many more articles from independent sources, as well as extensive info about the case histories, which I will try to add asap. Thanks for help and advice. I appreciate it (even if it didn't sound like it :-)). And I like Beth Orton, too... AndreaUKA (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for your comments. I hope I don't seem too uptight. Your use of "festooning" is quite impressive. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a writer - it goes with the territory :-) AndreaUKA (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the oldprodfull template there simply to show that the article has been proposed for deletion under WP:PROD and the proposal was contested. This means that it can't be deleted by prodding it again in the future, as it would not be an uncontroversial deletion. The point of this is just to inform future editors not to prod it - that the only way to delete is by an AfD discussion now. It can be hard to see this from the article history, and such articles could be inappropriately delected in good faith e.g. if there's vandalism to make the article look worthless, followed by a prod with no objection in the 5 day period.John Z (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and thanks for the explanation, although Mr Cheese said (see above) his template was more concerned with 'reliable sources' (which I've now addressed/am in the process of addressing)rather than 'deletion' - I don't think the article was ever in danger of actually being removed altogether. In fact it was a notability|biographies template, rather than a PROD. But thanks again for the explanation and assistance - much obliged. AndreaUKA (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence fragments

As new sentences are added to the article, they continue to be constructed in a format that omits the subject entirely, and leaves it to be inferred that the subject of the sentence is the subject of the article. This is appropriate to a bullet-pointed resume but not to an encyclopedia article.

Even though this is an article about Sharon Sergeant, we should be telling the incidents and facts that explain Sharon Sergeant's career, not simply writing declarative sentences of "Sharon Sergeant did this", "Sharon Sergeant did that", and shortening them to "Did this", "Did that". -- 192.250.112.200 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see what you mean - will endeavour to improve. Thanks. AndreaUKA (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Sharon Sergeant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]