St Andrews Typhoons: Reply
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 00:42, 6 May 2024 |
| Line 11: | Line 11: |
| ::They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to '''Redirect''' to the [[University of St Andrews]] article if no such sources are proffered. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | ::They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to '''Redirect''' to the [[University of St Andrews]] article if no such sources are proffered. [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
| ::Hi {{u|Fastfads}}, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline]]. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) | ::Hi {{u|Fastfads}}, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly [[WP:GNG|the general notability guideline]]. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
| :::I understand the motives for high quality articles and I understand the initial deletion nomination with what I originally published but I've put a significant amount work into making this article better. And once again, thank you for linking me to the many rules of Wikipedia article writing. It's been an learning experience and I feel my standards have had a lot of growth with recent edits - I think my extremely long "Keep" defense below gives evidence for that growth (and why this article should stay up). Yet I continue to have my work under a microscope - and the sources I have found criticized on the slightest details of independence. No matter what I do, it just doesn't seem like it is enough! At the same time when doing research I see one source articles for other teams in the same league remain with not a single complaint (not to say their existence is wrong - sometimes important histories don't have a lot of sources!). Even if I "*****" told it isn't personal and not a reflection on my work, this perceived difference in standards undeniably makes it feel personal. It is extremely discouraging to me that this topic (on a website that is the de facto answer to any question that needs explanation - even something as niche as a UK university ice hockey team) gets me put under what I believe to be an excessive amount of scrutiny compared to similar articles. | |
| :::Once again, I don't blame you for simply enforcing the rules of Wikipedia as you saw broken in my initial article. And I still believe in the mission of a global encyclopedia - I'll keep improving this page (to be done as explained in my "Keep" defense below) and pages around Wikipedia. However, regardless of outcome of this AfD (but especially if this fails; I can't spend hours finding sources, formatting and writing just to keep an article I wrote from being immediately sent to the morgue - with a chance that it could be sent back regardless) it will likely be some time before I attempt to create another article. I guess my final question is: What can I do to avoid an AfD on a new article in the future? And is this article still worthy of an AfD in your mind (and if so, why?) [[User:Fastfads|Fastfads]] ([[User talk:Fastfads|talk]]) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC) | |
| :I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @[[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] and @[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way. | :I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @[[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] and @[[User:Ravenswing|Ravenswing]] for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way. |
 oint #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the [https://buiha.org.uk BUIHA] and the team's page at [https://phoons.net phoons.net] - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there. | oint #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the [https://buiha.org.uk BUIHA] and the team's page at [https://phoons.net phoons.net] - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there. |
Okumaya devam et...