Hi E6fanatics! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Linqua Franqa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linqua Franqa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 18:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you wrote Linqua Franqa and are attempting to defend it at the deletion debate. I see you're a newer editor, so let me help you find your way around the myriad confusing policy pages that will be discussed in determining if that article stays or goes.

1. There are 3 different types of deletion that articles can be subject to. Speedy deletion, which is what the article was first nominated for, is a set of specific criteria that represent the worst types of objectionable content people try to put on Wikipedia. Articles that meet those critera can be deleted on sight with no further discussion. Linqua Franqa was nominated for that under the criteria of unambiguous advertising. I rejected it for that as it is not unambiguous advertising. However, it can still be deleted using the second type of deletion; AFD.
2. In an AFD there is a 7 day period of discussion to determine if the subject of the article is one that Wikipedia should have an article about. This discussion is supposed to focus on possibilities; can a suitable article be written about this topic? It is not supposed to be about the quality of the existing article, but in reality the best way to prove that a suitable article can be written is to write one.
3. The person who nominated the article for deletion has done so under two grounds; first, they still think the article is promotional in nature. I disagree. The best way to counter this is to ensure you do or say nothing that could be interpreted as promoting Linqua Franqa, her music, or her candidacy (though it looks like she's in office, not currently campaigning). Second, they contest that Linqua Franqa is not notable.
4. The key to proving something is notable for Wikipedia purposes is the following sentence:

   "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article."

   There are a great many pages on Wikipedia devoted to hashing out what, exactly, that means for different types of subject matter.
5. The most important subject specific notability guidelines in reference to Linqua Franqa would be notability for politicians (see the supplement on typical AFD outcomes for politicians) and notability for musicians. If you can prove she meets the criteria at either or both of those, the article will probably be kept. However, even if she doesn't meet the criteria for either, there's still the general notability guideline - that of significant coverage in reliable sources.
6. I would say, for example, that the CNN article (currently reference 20) doesn't meet significant coverage, as only the last two paragraphs in the article discuss her, and it seems like she's just mentioned in passing. The Daily Mail (ref 19) has been determined not to be a reliable source due to its "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". Most of the other references currently in the article are local news sources, which, while they may be reliable sources for facts, don't go far in establishing notability for a global encyclopedia. The NPR article (ref 10) only includes a photo of her in a montage and names her in the caption, but doesn't provide significant coverage of her.
7. On the other hand, the Newsweek article (Ref 17) and the article in Performer Magazine (Ref 1) do go a long way to establishing notability, although I note that Performer Magazine "focuses primarily on musicians who are unsigned and on small labels," meaning their focus is on people who, for Wikipedia's purposes, are otherwise unnotable. Both those articles are about her, they're in national (not local) magazines, and they are not (for example) written by her or mere transcripts of speeches or interviews by or with her (in other words, independent).
8. As I said when I rejected this for speedy - I think notability here is marginal at best. If you can dig up some more sources like the Newsweek or Performer Magazine sources, this is probably going to end up kept. If you can't, I give it a 50-50 shot.
9. Lastly, stay calm. The discussion lasts a week. This means you have a week to improve the article. Articles that improve significantly over the course of the week often end up kept even if there's a push to delete them early on. Be polite, use evidence, and don't needlessly repeat yourself when countering points raised by people arguing for deletion. Don't take this personally - the attempt to delete the article is not an attack on you or the worthiness of the article's subject.

If you need help, have questions, or want to vent, feel free to contact me and I'll try to help you. Good luck. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out User:ONUnicorn. I do have some questions about what I'm seeing. There are magazines and articles that feature Mariah Parker, politician. However, they are in sources that would be on the Left or Right. We have this one:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/kennedy-resignation-sparks-new-urgency-for-first-time-women-candidates-of-color-20180710

But we also have more Right wing oriented ones that are famous as well such as Breitbart. Is there any context in which this can be discussed as far as saying the Left leaning articles say this. The right says this? People kind of got these pictures, made them viral online, and it was used based on the perspective of the politics. Left saying it's an empowering image. The right saying it's divisive.E6fanatics (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with Breitbart. I would not use it at all. There was a recent discussion about Breitbart at reliable sources noticeboard which reached the following conclusion:

The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[7] and intentionally misleading stories.[10] There is a very clear consensus that Breitbart News should be deprecated in the same way as the Daily Mail. This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary.

I would say the Yes article is decent, even though it's not specifically about her it does discuss her at greater length than the CNN article does. Openly partisan sources can be used for their opinions so long as you make it clear that it is the opinion of X, but the more fringy the source is the less credence you should give it (hence one of many problems with Brietbart on the right, or Occupy Democrats on the left).~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:33, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:ONUnicorn thanks, but at this point I'm not sure what to do with the article. I made a lot of changes, added articles from the New York Times, etc. The reviewers are saying it doesn't matter so I'm not able to satisfy them. They appear to have a totally different criteria of notable from what I'm seeing in the Wikipedia rules E6fanatics (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linqua Franqa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vinyl (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Athens Rising: The Sicyon Project: Volume One is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athens Rising: The Sicyon Project: Volume One until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Athens Rising: The Sicyon Project: Volume One, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. [1] please do not move pages that are being nominated for deletion. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see you couldn't save Linqua Franqa and now have another article up for deletion. I'm sure that's really frustrating. Might I suggest, next time you try to create a new article, go through articles for creation, rather than creating directly in article space. Also, instead of trying to write about someone or something that is current (like newer musical performers, current politicians, recent documentaries, etc) you write about something historical. It's easier to get articles about topics from pre-1950s to stick, because it's harder to find sources about every Tom Dick and Harry from that time period. Therefore, if you can find sources for them, they're probably notable. Once you've gotten a couple articles on historical topics through AFC you'll probably have a better idea what sources to use, how to structure an article, and how notability is judged and will find it easier to move back into current topics. Another option is to not create articles for a while, and instead focus on reading and following deletion discussions so you see what sorts of things get kept vs. deleted and how things get saved. Also, look to see what's in the did you know section on the main page, as that area is reserved for featuring newer articles. Learning how Wikipedia works and how to edit here is a steep learning curve, and while we emphasize "anyone can edit" we should do a better job of showing newer editors the ropes, becuase the truth is that not everyone can jump right in and edit well - that takes time to learn. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]