User talk:Kaoskitteh

Add a new section if you want to get a message to me. I check up on my pages daily (Marcus D is the only page I have at the moment, but it demands my attention) so I should be able to reply quickly. Arigatou Gozaimasu (Thank you very much)

Sandbox page

Your sandbox contains a copy of an article which was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. Under Wikipedia policy, a userspace page may not be used for long-term storage of an article-like page which is unsuitable for use as an article. I have waited for some months to see what you were going to do with the page, but after more than a year you have made only minor changes, and the page is still substantially similar to that which was discussed and deleted. It seems that you are in effect using your userspace as a web host to host a page which is never going to be suitable for use as an article. Can you suggest any reason why the page should not be deleted? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

- @"JamesBWatson" - Thank you for notifying me that keeping the article in my sandbox is against policy, I was unaware. As the article was previously deleted primarily due to a lack of notability, I have since moved it to my Sandbox to make updates to it following every release of the mentioned artist so that, if the artist does meet Notability requirements after some time, I will have the page prepared and ready. As the artist is still active, the changes made reflect his current activity (Though I've been slacking a bit, since he's on tour at the moment). If it's preferred that I do so using my own personal documents as opposed to my sandbox, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Notepad is quite useful :3 . If it is requested that I do so, let me know preemptively so that I may create a backup of the page as it is. Kaoskitteh (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Keeping a draft for a while in preparation for future changes is reasonable, but since it is now distinctly over a year since the deletion discussion, with no sign of it becoming suitable to re-create the article yet, I think it would be better to move it to your own storage, off Wikipedia. Obviously, if and when there is good reason to believe that the subject has come to satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements, it will be fine to move it back. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

On that topic, the last discussion regarding the page was that the artist was not notable enough, and if I recall correctly only one more album on a notable label would have justified the page (Assuming that a recording label with its' own page on wiki is considered notable itself). I'd like to confirm that this is the only thing required of this page to meet Wikipedia standards, and I'd appreciate an experienced opinion on the subject (If you'd be willing to oblige, before I remove the page from Wikipedia and move it elsewhere). A checklist of remaining objectives would help both me and the artist to complete a cohesive and acceptable page before resubmitting. Kaoskitteh (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

By now you have had time to take a copy of the page, so I shall delete it. I can't give you a "checklist of remaining objectives", because notability is not assessed mechanically by a check list. Your comment "... would help both me and the artist to complete a cohesive and acceptable page..." indicates that you are working with the subject of the page, in which case you have a conflict of interest, and are not the right person to be writing a Wikipedia article about him. If and when he achieves notability by Wikipedia standards, probably an uninvolved, independent person will write an article about him from an outside, neutral, point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As long as the provided information is verified, accurate, and provided in an unbiased manner, a conflict of interest won't be involved. I just don't want to jump the gun by publishing the page again at a time when it is still unsuitable for use by notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.86.149 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)