User talk:Extolmonica

Youth United

A tag has been placed on Youth United, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under 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.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Undeath (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Yu logo1.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Yu logo1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Youth United

A tag has been placed on Youth United 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 a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth United

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Youth United, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome...

Hello, Extolmonica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Voyaging (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Helpme- extolmonica

Thanks for the message. You may want to check out Wikipedia:The perfect article for help on improving your article. If you need any more help, let me know! Voyaging (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth United for editors' comments on why they think your article should be deleted, and see Non-commercial organizations for the criteria your page meets for deletion. Voyaging (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your article was deleted due a violation of one of the reasons at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. To see why your article was deleted specifically, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth United. Voyaging (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your specific question (now archived here), Youth United was first deleted by Pegasus, then it was further deleted by Wizardman, and you can get to know that information by visiting this page. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Youth United

An editor has nominated Youth United, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youth United and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Yu logo2.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Yu logo2.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Yu logo2.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Please sign off all your comments on talk pages with ~~~~(four tildes), or you can use the sign your username option at the bottom right of your edit window. Thank you. Welt^anschaunng 04:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Yu logo2.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Yu logo2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) -- — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth United

A tag has been placed on Youth United, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Youth United is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Youth United saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please feel free to use deletion review, but do not continue to repost the article if it is deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "new" version still had nothing to indicate the notability of the organization. We need articles from newspapers, books, magazines -- reliable, impartial third-party sources -- which talk about this organization. Instead you give us links to the group's own website, and links which tell us what a non-governmental organization is. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the links you list are to the same article, which is about a demonstration YU helped organize. Another refers to "several NGOs" including YU. These verify the organization's existence, but are not the kind of substantial mentions necessary to establish notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.^[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.^[2]
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[3]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[4]
"Sources,"^[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[6]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[7] In particular, these references you have provided fail the part about "significant coverage." --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
^ However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories, are all examples of coverage that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

March 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Delrev. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Youth United

A tag has been placed on Youth United, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion review template

The deletion review notice you sent me is inappropriate. I did not delete the article, I did not edit the article, and I did not participate in the AfD for the article. Those would be the only circumstances that would preclude giving me the template you added to my talkpage. I have already said my piece at the deletion review. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be sent to anyone that you feel is interested in the topic. However, you shouldn't send a "deletion review notification" to editors that have only contributed to the deletion review. It's redundant and unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template you gave me was also superfluous. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same, as I already was watching the DRV discussion.. but since you added additional sources since my last comment, it makes sense, so thanks anyway. --Minimaki (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. The second template you gave me was also superfluous. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth United deletion review

The deletion review of this article has been closed. The result was that the deletion was upheld unanimously. There is no further appeal possible from this decision. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 08:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't getting why the article was deleted? I had added 9 third party source for no reason. all the recommendations were based on the earlier deletion criteria. None of them has replied after 9 reliable sources were quoted except of Minimaki, who said "Same, as I already was watching the DRV discussion.. but since you added additional sources since my last comment, it makes sense, so thanks anyway"
there is no point deleting this article without any reason. just answer me one simple straight question: which wikipedia policy was violated this time? Thanx Extolmonica (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 22:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so that implies that if i provide more reliable sources to justify the notability of the article, you will approve it?? Extolmonica (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the right or task of approving that or any article. I would recommend that you take some time to create a new version of the article in your userspace (possibly at User:Extolmonica/Youth United; I've moved the old version of the article there for you to work on) and include more and better references. When you have significantly improved the article, consider asking one or more of the editors who voted on the article's deletion to have a look, and if it is improved you can make a new request at Wikipedia:Deletion review for the article to be recreated.

However, I don't think that this will be successful. I understand that you are connected with the club. Please understand that your club probably is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page and consider writing instead about other more notable topics here, or about your club on its own website. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You provided plenty of reliable sources to show that the club exists. You did not, however, provide evidence that the club is notable enough for its own article. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be attributable. That is the issue you need to concentrate on. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.

[2] However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories, are all examples of coverage that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[3] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.

[4] Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.

[5] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[6] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.

[7] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]