User talk:Sarahhappel

Hello, Sarahhappel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Sarah Happel

A tag has been placed on Sarah Happel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. You asked for suggestions; here's the best one I have to offer. Read our conflict of interest policy, and don't create an article about yourself. If you are sufficiently notable to merit an article in Wikipedia, someone else will write it. You might also find WP:Why was my article deleted? to be useful information. In general, I think you'd find it useful to learn our rules and customs and try to fit in with them. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm afraid almost everything possible was wrong with modelogues. It wasn't written like an encyclopaedia article, had lots of unsourced spammy claims, didn't show why it was notable, and appeared to be copied from a website, which is copyright violation. Sorry jimfbleak (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article talk page.
Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at the article talk page with a link to the web page details.

jimfbleak (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modelogues

I suggest that you review Wikipedia's general notability criteria. It was difficult, without proper references (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE), to determine this. Let's examine the refernces you did provide:

http://www.ccartscouncil.org/realtoreel/real2006.htm -- This reference lists Fairy Tale Follies by you, but does not mention "Modelogues". So, it has no bearing on this article.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0408298/ -- This is about the movie Unreal', released in 2004. Nothing to do with this article.
https://www.plays411.net/newsite/show/play_info.asp?show_id=1071 -- Listing for your show. You stated to User:Jimfbleak that the show had already had its run. This page clearly indicates that it hasn't started yet. This makes it apear as though you are advertising for its upcoming performance. Where has it already been performed, so that there might be nontrivial reviews we could reference?
http://nycdowntownshorts.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html -- Blogs are generally NOT considered reliable sources of information. The exception to this would be if it were a blog maintained by a notable subject of an article, and the blog contained relevant nontrivial material referenced by the Wikipedia article.
http://www.actorsequity.org/ -- Not sure what this has to do with your article, either.
http://www.masterworkslighting.com/ -- Same here.

The website for the play lists LA Weekly's review, but I couldn't find it on their website. The ReviewPlays website similarly doesn't make any reference to you or your plays. The "Fairy Tale Follies" website, and even your own, are dead links! Not so good for establishing notability. Without any references, and your own use of peacock terms, without any scholarly substance, we have to assume, especially due to your conflict of interest, that you are only pushing for more notability where none yet exists. That's not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia. Once you are notable, then we can start documenting this stuff, as there should be plenty of proper sources to reference. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat what I said before, and what CobaltBlueTony has explained in more detail. Talk of PR and marketing teams only confirms that you are using Wikipedia for publicity. If you really think you can write a neutral, properly referenced encyclopaedia article, do it here and let me know, but you're not really the right person, given your conflict of interest, and notability still remains an issue. jimfbleak (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; these are much more useful. I don't understand how LA Weekly can offer a search feature that doesn't pull up material that is clearly on their site. Useless! Let me give you my first impression of the links you've provided on my talk page:

http://www.laweekly.com/2007-09-13/stage/theater-reviews-avenue-q-tug-of-war-the-misanthrope/1 -- The subversive article I wanted to find. Here it is; not sure of the barrier for trivial/nontrivial, but there it is. I'm concerned that it is stuffed into a giant paragraph without any way to know for a certainty who reviewed it; notable reviewers obviously help. There's no real review of the type that generates praise, or even mentions of awards, even for "best script" or whatever. That would be beneficial.
http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm/show/136503 -- While I'm not in the theater world, Alexa.com ranks it 4th in theater websites' popularity, so that adds weight to it. But the review is only a synopsis, again. Not the meatiness many Wikipedians will be looking for.
http://www.la.com/arts/9457231.html -- only a listing. Tons of stuff gets listed even in big papers; could be inserted by a PR group so that wouldn't make the fact that it was listed any indication of notability; nor is such a one-liner type of listing itself notable.
http://www.lacitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=6097&IssueNum=222 -- Again, a one-liner type listing.
http://www.goldstar.com/events/los-angeles-ca/modelogues.html -- Has a paygate, so I can't see the full review.
http://perhapsperhapsperhaps.typepad.com/what_the_butler_saw/2007/09/modelogues-the-.html -- It's a blog, but it reproduces likely copyrighted material I can't find on the site itself. Not sure how to proceed without properly licensed material.
http://www.searchgossip.com/-hsn+models-2.htm -- Not too sure what to make of this, other than I could not find relevant content here. When I searched for "Modelogues," I found only a link to a video of models falling, supposedly from your play.
http://lastheplace.com/2007/09/07/modologues-a-comedic-look-inside-the-world-of-modeling-2/ -- This one looks the most promising, but it came out only a day after the play opened, and doesn't give the meatiness I'm hoping for.

I'm not sure that your PR people would grasp the strict intellectual intent of Wikipedia; we're not here to document the popular; only the notable. There IS a difference.

I'll continue to review this stuff. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that notability for the play itself would rise AFTER it's published and performed at large, garnering more reviews, and giving it a far better chance for notable events to occur for it, i.e. award nominations. Any other nontrivial independent press coverage will do, though, as long as it's more than a single reference. Right now it's hard to pin down notability, so I suggest that you submit a deletion review, and include as many non-one-liner-type reviews as you can find, and hopefully someone will agree that it meets the criteria and accept the restoration of the article. There are plenty of Wikipedians here that are far more studious than myelf and have the time required to really dig into these reviews and substantiate (or for now, refute) your claims. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]