User talk:LeaW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 twinkle problem 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alakamisy 3 Daisenryaku et al Afd 4 AfD, Disk Firewall 5 Your AfD nominations 6 Thanks

[edit] twinkle problem

Sorry fgor beeing late, have fixed that bug now :) _→AzaToth 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alakamisy

All geographical articles whether it is towns or mountains etc are inherently notable. The problem is often accessing enough information to expand them into decent articles but because they are sub stubs doesn't mean they should be deleted. I'm sure you've noticed that there are many such articles on wikipedia ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Daisenryaku et al Afd

These are games. WP:FICT applies to things inside works of fiction not the works of fiction themselves. and there are google hits for these games. Please read the appropriate guidelines carefully and actually search Google before citing "no hits on Google" before actually using them. Don't be irresponsible with your noms. It will make you look bad.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: Following the nutshell on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction),

Articles dealing with a work of fiction should demonstrate real-world notability from reliable sources. Such articles should be structured around the demonstrated notability for the topic, with an appropriate balance of in-universe information

where a "work of fiction" is "a book, movie, television series, video game, or other medium"—this is not just about in-universe (character, in-universe-places) articles, but also about the works themselves (in this instance video games). When citing "no hits on Google" I referred to the absence of reliable sources on Google; of course the games are mentioned on a lot of pages, but that's not enough to assert notability per WP:FICT. -- Lea (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the fine print:

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) covers the notability of characters, items, places, and other elements (including individual episodes of serialized works such as television or comic book series) within a work of fiction. Games aren't covered by this proposed policy

It seems that you haven't checked the hits at all. For these articles, try looking at gamespot, Ign, rotten tomatoes and game rankings. GA and FA class game articles are usually ref'd by these sites. If you want to make your afd's stronger, try proving that there are no reviews on these sites for these articles. I usually cite the lack of reviews in these articles as violation of WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N which trumps any specialized guidelines.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD, Disk Firewall

Hi, I responded to your remark about this article being removed. Looking forward to your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8dude (talk • contribs) 10:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your AfD nominations

Hi there, LeaW. I've noticed your name quite a few times as nominator in the AfD circle. What seems strange to me is how infrequently your noms gather any comments for delete or for keep. I checked through your contribs and noticed that you've recently been spending a large portion of your time in AfD (almost exclusive). As an AfD closer, I recommend you slow down on the nominations (see WP:TIND, and perhaps focus on commenting on a few as a participant instead of a nominator? Most of your AfDs from earlier this month, right or wrong, will end up relisted for lack of participation. I don't fault you for that, just a curiousity most likely. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your work/help on the social constructivism (learning theory) article. I began the article a while back and did copy/paste about one paragraph from another Wikipedia article to "get the ball rolling" on the article. I did not realize taht this was not within the rules. The redirect, though, would be more appropriately pointed to constructivism (learning theory) rather than social construcionism - the former is direclty related and even has a small section about the topic. Thanks for your explaination of why you changed/deleted it. -cmsmith81 --Cmsmith81 (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)