Unknown Supremo

Notability of Keith Norman

The article Keith Norman has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article seemed to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for your negative experience. You have to realise that, as soon as you hit 'save page', the article 'goes live' and is visible to everybody. Looking at that article suggested to me that the subject was not notable. I was also a little concerned that the article may be a coatrack- that is, little more than a rant against the strike action. If you want to have some time to work on the article without the fear of getting deleted, you are welcome to work on it in a sandbox (such as User:Unknown Supremo/Keith Norman) and move it into the article space once it is 'ready'. This will also allow a more experienced Wikipedian to check the page and make sure that it is consistent with our policies. I can copy the deleted text to you if you like. Again, apologies. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not turn this into politics- here, all that matters to me are Wikipedia's policies and guidelines- I leave my personal beliefs at the door so that I can edit in a neutral manner. I delete pages about subjects that do not appear to meet our guidelines be they fundamentalist Christians, atheists, communists, anarchists, facists, pro-Wikipedia, anti-Wikipedia or any other matter I may feel strongly about. J Milburn (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn is heavy-handed and does not assume good faith on Wikipedia. I also laughed when he claimed to be libertarian. Just keep in mind he's a 17 year old kid. Didn't we all think we knew everything at that age? Hopefully his arrogance will catch up with him. James1906 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice this?

Did you see that we already have an article about the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen? Friday (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I was a bit coatracky, but also that the post had some merit. I take the crit, but would point out that, in general, non-wikiexpert edits may, not infrequently, nevertheless be of worth and rather well informed. I occasionally contribute the odd comma (often not signed in), and less often some content of meaning, but I simply don't have the time to a) learn the full wiki mode and b) dispute the details. Still, there are worse things for 17 year olds to be getting up to, and I admire him for his dedication... I speak as a mid-forties guy with a First from Oxford, and a work record that includes advising one President, a dozen or so Cabinet Members, and regular gigs earning money as a serious journalist. Unknown Supremo (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)