Hi Nigel654! 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 Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harvey and the Wallbangers 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/Harvey and the Wallbangers 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 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. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nigel654. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Beach Boogie, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ... discospinster _talk 02:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice your note on the talk page. However, I am afraid that the speedy deletion nomination was correct. Since you're a newer editor, I wanted to clear a few things up.

Firstly, it appears you were rather closely connected with the event, and you even photographed it from a helicopter. (I'm rather envious of that one; that must have been very fun indeed.) However, for any of us, it is very difficult to write in a neutral way about things which we are close to. In this case, the article starts out with ...based on the beautiful Isle of Wight..., and continues on in the same way from there: With high quality dance instruction, by some of the best teachers from the UK and abroad, madcap games, exhilarating performances and non-stop dancing the camp attracted an eclectic mix of people from all walks of life. "Beautiful", "high quality", "best", "madcap", "exhilarating", "non-stop", "eclectic", etc., are all puff terms which have no place in an encyclopedia article. Our goal is to inform, not excite, the reader. Similarly, photographs should be at thumbnail size, not stretching across the entire page. Again, photos and other media are there to inform, not excite.

In addition, you cited no independent and reliable sources, only some of the organization's own material. You also stated in your talk page note that "It is likely that these facts could be lost without inclusion in such articles." Wikipedia articles should never contain a fact unavailable elsewhere. Rather, they should be based solely on facts already published in independent and reliable sources. If substantial quantities of such reliable and independent source material don't exist about this event, it is not appropriate for us to have an article about it at all.

It seems your primary purpose is to memorialize your memories of the event and how much you enjoyed it. And of course that is fine, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to do that. If that's what you would like to do, please use a personal website or social media instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on the above. I agree that the text may have been more flamboyant than was appropriate and redrafting of this would be better. I did try however to make the article factual, with details of the event in table format taking the information from printed sources that were available. I also agree with you regard to the large photograph at the bottom of the article, but this was more to do with my basic understanding of writing wiki than was actually intended (ie this is how it appeared when inserted and probably needs more suitable coding). With regard to the independant sources, sometimes these are very limited and as long as the basic source is reliable it would be difficult to easily cross references these against other information from different sources, especially in an era before the internet. I slightly disagree with your statement "memorialize your memories" as this was a significant chapter in shaping the modern partner dance enviroment and I think the article would be of interest to countless people and that there would be significant additional contributions from others that would improve the quality of the information and add more detail to the article. Would a republication be worthwhile, taking into account the comments you have made? For any future articles it would probably be better to have a review via sandbox before publification, but again in this instance this was more that I am new to writing such articles and am just getting to grips with the process.

Only if there is a substantial quantity of reliable and independent published reference material available about the subject. (Note that it need not be online; books and other printed reference material are entirely acceptable as sources, so long as your citation would permit any reader to verify the information by finding a copy of that work themselves, but personal knowledge, interviews you conduct yourself, material in private collections or otherwise unavailable to the general public, etc., cannot be used as a source for article material.) If you can find that, stick only to facts verified by those sources. If not, we should not have an article about the subject, regardless of who might find it interesting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]