User talk:Rcnvr

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Rcnvr, 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:

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! Isabell121 (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

Wikipedia generally avoids using self-published sources, per WP:SELFPUBLISH. Do we know anything about the credentials of the writer? --McGeddon (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to google searches and the author bio he has been quoted in the national media regarding the subject of Festivus. In this case there is no better Festivus resource out there, self-published or other. This is clearly a tome, and it does effectively update the notion that people are continuing too celebrate this holiday. Did you see it was endorsed by the son of the Festivus creator Dan O'Keefe?

Might be alright, then. It should be being used to source actual statements and interview quotes about Festivus, rather than just the bald self-promotional fact of "book released 2015, available in all good bookstores". --McGeddon (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However that section refers to two other books in the same way. Also, I don't see where my edit refers to availability of the book.Rcnvr (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was just a joke: mentioning a book only to say that it exists, rather than what it contains, comes across as a little promotional. Particularly if the only given source is that book itself - if the book's existence is important, a secondary source will have mentioned its relevance. It's quite possible the other books aren't appropriately sourced either. --McGeddon (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, I'm not going to go back and source them properly, or make any further changes for that matter. The entire article needs work and I'll leave it to someone else. Rcnvr (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Whiskey 601 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whiskey 601 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/Whiskey 601 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. Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Edward A. Sellers

The article Edward A. Sellers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN doctor, sources are primary, broken links or casual mentions. Fails the GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravenswing 21:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nelson Rapids

The article Nelson Rapids has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

NN geographical location. If the backwoods creek this is on -- the "river" is less than a mile long -- isn't notable enough for an article, neither is a feature on it. Fails WP:GEO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ravenswing 21:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]