Fansohan

Speedy deletion nomination of Grace Parra

A tag has been placed on Grace Parra 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 person or group of people, 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 biographies. 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I have seen your comment at Talk:Grace Parra. I also see that you added a {{hangon}} tag under the deletion proposal tag. However, "hangon" is only for speedy deletion, not proposed deletion (commonly called "PROD" for short). If this seems as confusing to you as it did to me when I first started editing Wikipedia, well I have every sympathy. For a PROD you are allowed to just remove the tag if you disagree with deletion. Since I am sure that is what you intended, I have removed it for you. Now that the PROD has been contested, anyone wanting deletion will have to start an "Article for Deletion" discussion or "AfD". If this is done you must not remove the notice about it, but you can take part in the discussion and explain why you think the article should be kept. (Confused yet? Actually it all becomes much simpler once you have had a little experience.)

To see what sort of evidence is needed to show notability of a subject have a look at the general notability guideline, the guideline on notability of people, and the guideline on reliable sources.

Finally, if you have any questions about this please feel welcome to post them here and copy this: {{Talkback|Fansohan|Proposed deletion}} to my talk page to let me know there is a message waiting here for me. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, James B Watson

Yes, I was very confused and your help is very much appreciated. I am still a little confused but it's comforting that there are real people with human feelings here. This is an interesting place, the background of Wikipedia. I'm sure the dynamics between the users, the content, and the administration constitute a poignant meta-drama that warrants its own scholarly attention. The fact that this storm of human interactions is behind the constant, neutral voice of Wikipedia is a surprising and fascinating revelation for me. It's really intimidating and I'm not sure how involved I want to get; on the other hand, I love Wikipedia and there are always gaps to be filled, some of which I think I could help to fill. Not sure what the protocol is here, S-H —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fansohan (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 September 2010

I understand perfectly what you mean. My own involvement in Wikipedia came about very gradually and more or less by accident. When using Wikipedia as a reader I occasionally came across things that I knew were wrong, and I very tentatively and cautiously made very minor corrections. Then I found that some of my edits (which I knew were correct) were being reverted, which I thought was by an editor who had a conflict of interest trying to suppress information, so I questioned their action. Step by step from there I became more and more involved. In the course of doing so I came to see Wikipedia in a completely different light than I had as a mere reader, rather than an editor. Things which at first seemed confusing, arbitrary, and recondite gradually slipped into place and came to seem more reasonable. The three different deletion processes, which at first seemed just part of a silly game, came to make sense. That does not mean that they are perfect, or that they are exactly as I would have designed them, but it does mean that I can see that there are genuine reasons for having different processes that work in different ways. Your comment about "the dynamics between the users, the content, and the administration" is interesting, and very true. I would never have come up with "poignant meta-drama", but I like it.

On a more down to earth matter, I am surprised that the person who put a PROD on the article you created has not taken it to AfD, which I was expecting. If anyone does so I am doubtful whether it will survive on the basis its present sources. My feeling is that she may well be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but that at present the sources are not good enough to show that she is.

You say "It's really intimidating and I'm not sure how involved I want to get; on the other hand, I love Wikipedia and there are always gaps to be filled, some of which I think I could help to fill." My suggestion is to make little edits here and there where you find something that you can improve. That may or may not lead you to eventually move on to a bigger involvement, depending on how you find it. However, I believe doing that is better than rushing in, doing lots of major stuff such as writing long articles, only to endure the frustration of having everything destroyed because you didn't do things in the accepted way. I have seen many editors go through that experience, and it can be very unpleasant. Better to learn gently, and make mistakes in little tasks that don't cost you much if you lose them. If, once you have learnt, you want to do bigger things, that is fine, but you won't have to if you don't feel like it.

Finally, a small point. When you write on talk pages, finish your post with 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~ ). This will be automatically translated into a signature. Not only does this save you from typing in a signature, but it also includes a link to your talk page, which can be very convenient for anyone who wants to get back to you, and the date and time, which can sometimes be useful. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)