User talk:Mabalu: Difference between revisions
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== [[Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)|Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence]]== |
|||
You have recently nominated this page for deletion. Can you please confirm what doesn't meet the Wiki criteria? The article has been recreated with more references and notable links with relevant information. Do you think anything specific which needs improvement? awesomeme111 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Awesomeme111|Awesomeme111]] ([[User talk:Awesomeme111|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Awesomeme111|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
: In my opinion it is not notable. I do not see the significant coverage required to show it is notable. But let us see how the discussion goes. [[User:Mabalu|Mabalu]] ([[User talk:Mabalu#top|talk]]) 21:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, I have provided my argument on the discussion page for [[Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)]] You say there is no significant coverage? I have highlighted and referred to news editorials with huge amount of coverages on FFACE. Am I missing something or do you think the article requires to be better drafted than what it is now? I however agree to your points on the other article of mine [[Indroneel Mukherjee (Fashion Designer)]]. There isn't much notability and most of it are just passing comments whilst they are in mainline news papers. Cheers awesomeme111 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Awesomeme111|Awesomeme111]] ([[User talk:Awesomeme111|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Awesomeme111|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== reliable source == |
== reliable source == |
||
Revision as of 14:54, 15 October 2014
reliable source
Hi,
I have added reliable source in below topic 1. Sample Video Clip 2. Physical Location
Pls. consider and avoid deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadhusivaraman (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sadhusivaraman. I'm sorry, neither of these is anywhere near being a reliable source. Reliable sources are published in newspapers, books, or reputable websites with editorial control - and they are written by people who are NOT you and who are not associated with you. You need several people to have written about you, in depth, for newspapers, books or news websites, to demonstrate that you are notable. There is already a big problem with the article being autobiographical - you really are not supposed to write about yourself or edit an article about yourself. Mabalu (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Jogil9630
Any particular similarity? Jogil9630 just looks like a well-meaning but careless new editor "helping" Wikipedia by Google-image searching for pictures of people we don't have photos of, and pasting them up, watermarks and all. I can't see that any of the linked socks were doing anything like this. --McGeddon (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Their focus on Miss Supranational is, for me, a big red flag - it's possible there is no connection, but I think it's very fishy that so soon after Miss Supranational gets a lot of bad attention, someone pops up conveniently a few days later focusing on related articles with pretty much the same dodgy editing behaviour. Maybe it's coincidence, but it does seem to fit into the pattern/editing behaviour. Mabalu (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, fair enough, I hadn't realised it was focused on anything, I just had one of the articles on my watchlist for some reason. --McGeddon (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| thanks for editing! Andretorres001 (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC) |
Sandbox/TimmisSpring
When the OCR (Optical Character Recognition) errors are fixed, and sense is make of the patentapplicationese gobblegook, then an improved version of Sandbox/TimmisSpring might go into the main article Timmis system. IMHO, this is a good and sensible use of the sandbox system. For the moment I think that it is best to keep the sandbox part separate. Tabletop (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Tabletop, what I was wondering about is that you have created a Wikipedia article titled Sandbox/TimmisSpring rather than a sub-page on your user space which would serve the same purpose as a sandbox. I just wondered if this was a mistake, as it seemed like a temporary being-worked-on page that ought to be in userspace rather than main article space. Mabalu (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you look closely, there is also a User:Tabletop/TimmisSpring, which is a less developed re-editing of the Patent Application.
The main piece of useful text says: "invented certain new and useful Improvements in Coiled Steel Springs". Tabletop (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)