Speedy deletion nomination of Catapilla
A tag has been placed on Catapilla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it 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.
If you can assert the importance of the subject, . Clicking that button 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 article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
Hi Mxp3456, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article Catapilla-- The content seems pretty substantial. I'm kind of new here myself but let me know if there is any way I can help. Thanks, Jipinghe (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out. Wikipedia's (or rather the first few experienced Wikipedians I've come across are) not for me so I'll not be continuing - but thanks anyway. Good luck with it here.Mxp3456 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catapilla until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- ...and again. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 19:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful post. Unfortunately your fellow wikipedians have managed to put me off the site with their stupidity so I'm out of here. Nonetheless, thanks for reaching out.
I believe the threat of deletion of this article has passed. Please don't take it personally, there are hundreds of articles placed on Wikipedia every week about bands that aren't notable. Some only ever existed in the drummer's garage, some might have got as far as recording a demo tape at the local church hall, some are blatant hoaxes that never existed. That's why we have certain tests of notability, covered by WP:GNG and WP:MUS. If a band article doesn't make any claims of notability, they are subject to speedy deletion, which can result in an article being taken down within minutes of being created. If there are claims of notability, but these claims are not backed up by references, then it can be nominated for an articles for deletion discussion. It can seem a little cold or aggressive, but it ensures the quality of articles to some extent. I hope you stick around and get to like it here. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Before responding to your note - if you're interested in the two album pages watch out for user TassedeThe - he's another deleter on whatever grounds he thinks he has but there were already pages for those and he decided to delete them a few days ago.
Genuine thanks for your help. I work on a site where the peer review is equally (or more) difficult so my problem is not review, but rather the tone. So no this place isn't for me - it feels like what started out as an open idea has, perhaps inevitably, become a victim of its own success and administrators (which in the only explanation given to me by one of them is that it is an exalted 'look at me; I can delete your article just 'cause I want to' status) run the place as they see fit. The article contained only 1 sentence and that sentence contained the fact that passed the notability test. All of which wasn't good enough for one of this select group of administrators who preferred to rely on the fact that some other administrator had previously taken exception to the article rather than look at it from scratch. Anyway, I don't think wikipedia is missing much as I duck out - there seem to be plenty of people around here. I'll continue to use it as an invaluable resource. Thanks again.220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)