User talk:Poet009

Welcome!

Hello, Poet009, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cyberwit press 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 an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, none of the references conveyed notability about this company; indeed, most were listings that showed the press exists, but nothing to show why it is notable. That notwithstanding, the article asserted no notability, merely stating the company exists and has published a few books; for that reason, I endorsed the speedy deletion tag. You are welcome to create an article that clearly demonstrates notability, if possible. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I disagree with the speedy. I do not know if the press is notable, but it clearly asserted notability by saying it had published famous authors, which is the criterion for passing AfD. But I agree completely with Kinu's good advice to more clearly show notability before you restore it. If it has published multiple notable books, then a stronger case will be made for notability. List some of the best-known books, and show that they are notable by links to reviews such as the Statesman review already in the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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) 07:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had an edit conflict when I was trying to fix the article at the same time you were nominating for AfD. The AfD. consequently got messed up technically, so i placed it myself, & wrote what I think are your reasons for deletion--please take a look and comment if you like--you should probably add a formal delete vote, Myself, I support keeping it, and said so. I agree it was originally a very poor grade repetitious and somewhat promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DGG, yes I understand that but anything written like this without any reliable references indicate just promotion.Thank you.Have a good day.--Poet009 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did consider G11 myself for this one, but I decided to try fixing it instead. I am fairly sure refs to reviews can be found, but I admit I have not yet looked, & it is very possible that they won't be in any sources accessible to me, as is often the case with Indian writers. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear DGG, I tried to search sources for this article but couldn't land up with reliable souces due to which I have proposed it for deletion.Moreover being an Indian, what I can say is the subject is not notable as I have heard this name for the first time.Thanks.--Poet009 (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you nominate an article for deletion make sure to do everything listed by the template that appears. That includes listing articles on the deletion page and notifying the article creator. Please check WP:AFDHOWTO as a reminder. I fixed your recent nominations. Hekerui (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks dear Hekerui for your message.Will do that hence.--Poet009 (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is considered bad form to solicit one-sided !votes in deletion discussions (or any other discussion really), see WP:CANVASS. I haven't had a chance to read the AFD in detail but will probably have future comments if you're interested. The discussion itself will probably end with the page being kept (inappropriately in my mind) but you can never take that personally, that's how process and consensus works. A molehill is being made into a mighty mountain over there and I think Shawn in Montreal is going way overboard considering everyone has to make mistakes to learn - so please don't be discouraged by the biting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.Yes I was not aware of this- WP:CANVASS.I will keep it in mind my hence.I just nominated the article as the subject is surely non notable.If any other finds her notable then fine but being an English teacher in India itself I have never heard the name of this girl.--Poet009 (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm unimpressed with the other editor's reaction, it's not like you have to become familiar with all policies and guidelines before editing wikipedia. Yes, it is considered bad form to approach other editors who can reasonably be expected to have a bias, but there is wiggle room.

This is a relatively minor page for an as-yet unimportant author. Unless Jamshed does something else of public note, it is unlikely to expand. As more time goes by, it is more likely to be deleted in my opinion per WP:BLP1E but it'll probably take a year or two. If you're interested, here's a bit more advice:

1. 1. Deletion occurs or not due to notability, which requires extensive coverage in multiple, independent sources. I don't think this threshold is reached, but consensus is built through discussion and the AFD process is not cut-and-dried. It's very much subject to unusual outcomes and many wikipedians are inclusionists whose standards are lower than mine (see meta:deletionism also). Jamshed has several articles in newspapers - making her appear to pass WP:N - but the book itself didn't garner any significant coverage meaning WP:BLP1E could be an issue leading to deletion.
   2. It is not the personal opinion or knowledge of individual editors that determines notability. Due to systemic bias there is an undue emphasis on English, particularly United States-focused issues. Accordingly, we require sources, rather than editor judgment, to determine notability.
   3. Jamshed herself appears to be using the page to promote herself judging by the number of edits from anonymous IP addresses in India that keep adding sales information. This is obviously a conflict of interest and should be removed, but that doesn't determine notability or justify deleting the page.

Wikipedia's a complicated place, with lots of policies and guidelines but the rules themselves are at the core relatively simple. Though you did indeed make a small mistake per CANVASS, I think Shawn's reaction is grossly excessive biting (but I have yet to read the AFD page through completely). This is a learning opportunity, not a reason to drive someone off wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm reading through the discussion at the Nabila Jamshed AFD and have some comments for you. They're basically my opinion as an experienced editor, and might help you out in future such discussions. Feel free to ignore them, but I do think they'll help you understand some of the issues you've ran into.

• First off, notability has a specific meaning here. The general notability guidelines are at WP:N, books have a special guideline (WP:NBOOK) but since this is ostensibly about a person, specifically an author, the appropriate guidelines are at WP:ARTIST. It's a bit of a fuzzy line because she's only written one book and her article basically lives or dies on the attention paid to her book so your confusion is understandable. You say several times that "media coverage does not indicate notability" - that's nearly 100% wrong, media coverage is exactly what determines notability. See WP:N. This should have been politely pointed out to you with reference to the appropriate link - Sodabottle did this, and I agree with his points about the guidelines, even if I disagree over his interpretation in this case.
• Previous AFDs don't really matter that much in current ones, the article stands on its own. The exception is for the recreation of previously deleted material, which falls under WP:CSD, criteria {{db-repost}}/G4. When listing a deletion discussion, you are supposed to link to previous discussions. Normally the template helps you do this, I did it manually in this edit. I don't really understand the coding on this one, but it worked so yay!
• The real guts of the discussion comes down to the sources - are they adequate. Jamshed is very much a borderline case - in my opinion it should be deleted, others disagree. The AFD discussion should establish consensus for this, unfortunately the discussion hasn't received much input and has been substantially sidetracked by the back-and-forth between you and SiM. AFD is a bit of a crapshoot, see here for a discussion I consider completely wrongheaded, but still when it's a decision we disagree with, if the process has been followed we have to live with it. With people, particularly with WP:BLP1E, it's a lot more complicated.
• You mention conflict of interest. Though COI is a reason to edit a page to remove Vanispamcruftisement, it's not a reason to delete it. It certainly deserves attention, but not deletion on that basis alone. Self-promotion is a bad thing (see WP:SOAP and WP:ADVOCACY) but not a reason for deletion.
• You mention a blog in the external links section. WP:EL states that blogs are allowed when they are the subject of the article.
• Finally, WP:CANVASS, which we've already been through. The only point here is to say that it is indeed bad form to contact a single side regarding an AFD or other discussion. Again, this should have been politely pointed out, not turned into a lengthy debate. SiM is correct, but not very WP:CIVIL, particularly with an editor as new as you. Calling it votestacking when it's more clearly inexperience is way overblown. Saying I'm "bending policy" is a stretch, bites a lot, and does not assume good faith. But you need a thick skin to edit here so sometimes it's better to just let it drop.

On a "positive" note, DGG has !voted delete. I respect DGG's opinion, and he's a librarian (I think). But ultimately the result will depend on the closing admin. But either way, the outcome is up to the community - who will often disagree with you. As I've said before, meh. You have to accept the result irrespective the outcome, unless you want to take it to WP:DRV.

Final comment - if you wanted to, I've written an essay for new editors at User:WLU/Generic sandbox on the mores of the community (in my experience). You may find it interesting and it's a summary I still find accurate several years later. As I've said, feel free to ignore it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined speedy deletion of this user page because {{db-author}} did not apply. {{db-author}} means that the author of the page has requested its deletion, and he hasn't. If you meant that the user is not a notable author, you can request deletion at WP:MFD instead, but personally I would prefer just to leave the user page alone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how much experience you clearly have of notability issues, speedy deletions etc, your comments on my talk page show wilful ignorance. You self-description made me smile. You claim to have zero-tolerance for self-promotion - and then feel the need to qualify it. Apparently in your world it's OK to self-promote if you really are important. Sadly for you, that's not the way it works - as I'm sure you know perfectly well. Your endless self-promotion is transparent, laughable and embarrassing. I'm just sorry you're wasting so many people's time with it.

I've invented poetic forms too. I have self-published too. My books have been praised too. So what? I'm just as obscure and unimportant as you are! When you have a real review - one you haven't written yourself and copied to hundreds of obscure magazines, in fact when you have many such real reviews, then you have a claim to notability. When your invented poetic form is taken up by others and starts being taught in poetry classes; when it becomes the subject of independent comment in respected poetry journals, then you can claim notability for it. But even then, you are not the one to write about it in Wikipedia. No doubt you think your aliases are fooling people. We're not that stupid. And as for the circular self-promotion deal you have going with your friend in Canada... my advice: choose a better poet! Her poetry is terrible.

I do sincerely wish you well with your poetry. I also understand very well the need for self-promotion - but why try to do it here where it is so clearly unwelcome? Put your time and effort into other approaches that will cause you and others less stress and might sell more of your books. Tesspub (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You may throw your personal comments if you want but that shouldn't be thrown at me naming as the subject of articles I have created. Tell your name, if you have invented forms that have been published(you vaguely use the word self publish as you have been using it as you have told above)and it is published in independent references, I will add a wiki article for you too and yes, about the thing being notable only when it is taught in classes, first mend the bio articles of wiki 95% of whom are not taught in classes.Your particular interest in this subject shows clearly that you are presenting personal enmity in Wikipedia and it is not a place for this. Also there are lot of articles in wiki without any reference.Why not mend those first? I know you won't and have come here to present personal enmity only and you recent activities shows that so clearly.If yo really wish to have a good time editing at wikipedia, why didn't you chose unreferenced articles rather than choosing this article first. Quite amusing! Also quite amusingly you have pointed at my article about Cadice James.Have a try to delete that article first through speedy delete then too and yes, seeing the way you speak, why don't you send a letter to New Westminster Government officials who has bestowed Poet Laureate upon her.Also please show me the link where wikipedia has mentioned that respected Scholarly journal references are only welcome to reference an article? I will delete my own articles then.Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachin_Ketkar also where similar references as I use has been used. --Diameter 09:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to offer to create pages about me and my poetic works. Can I think about it and let you know? Tesspub (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poet009/Sonnet mondal, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Poet009/Sonnet mondal and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Poet009/Sonnet mondal during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. SheepNotGoats (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]