Avayafone
Welcome edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. To find out how to make useful contributions, take a look at the welcome page. To stay in Wikipedia, an article has to be about something notable, that is, of general interest. Click on Notability for an explanation of what that means. Also, it must give independently verifiable sources. Articles that don't meet these requirements are likely to be deleted. Follow the links below to learn more:
- To find out more about creating articles, read the Introduction, the Tutorial, and the Guide to creating your first article.
- You should not write articles about yourself, your band, or your best friend - that's a conflict of interest.
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang or neologisms.
- For experiments, please use the sandbox.
Damn Straight edit
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Damn Straight, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Damn Straight. JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Damn Straight edit
An article that you have been involved in editing, Damn Straight, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damn Straight. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Damn Straight AfD edit
I have read your note in the deletion debate, and may add a brief comment there. There are two aspects to this:
Speed of action - unfortunately a lot of people put articles in on an "I'll finish this later" basis; in view of the importance of verifiability this is particularly worrying when what is "to be supplied" is references. So even the {{underconstruction}} tag says "If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template", and there is an automatic bot that scuttles round and removes them after, I think, 8 days. I treated your notice about needing a day as if it were an {{underconstruction}} tag, and waited in fact 12 days.
The article itself - before listing it, I considered whether it was likely that it could be developed into an encyclopedia article, and did not think so. The relevant policies are in WP:NAD and WP:NOT#DICT, and in WP:STUB which contains this key sentence:
- A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase.
I have looked at several of the entries in Category:Vocabulary and usage stubs. Some of those, e.g. Craplet seem to me OK - it describes what the word is about - and Shuckin' and jivin' gives some sociological background; but others like Pound the table also seem to me dictionary rather than encyclopedia material (in fact that one is word for word the same in Wiktionary). In any case What about article X? is recognized not to be a useful argument in deletion discussions; nobody denies that there is a lot of unsuitable material in WP, but that is not a good argument for adding more.
In two or three days an admin will look at the AfD debate and decide. If before then you can supply references and enough material to make an encyclopedia article, do that, say so in the debate, and he will look at the result. Otherwise, if it is deleted and you disagree, you can take it to Deletion review, or you can bring the article back later if you can flesh it out and adequately source it; I find it hard to think of anything you could say about "Damn Straight" which couldn't equally be said about "Too right!" or "Bloody oath!" or any other Oz-derived expression of agreement, but maybe you can see something I can't.
Even if you are disappointed this time, I hope you do stay with Wikipedia in the long term; if so you will find it worth taking the time to read the (rather long) guide to what Wikipedia is not.