Wayland-smith
Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Barbara Biggs are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! StoptheDatabaseState 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Please be advised that books written by the subject of a biography cannot be used as sources of information about the subject. I have been working with Barb on her talk page and I don't believe we have enough well sourced information to accept this autobiography. Please see wp:v. Alan.ca 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Barbara Biggs Article Statement
editI posted the original entry as lesser-known identities already have longer entries.
Firstly, I used Biggs' own notes, lightly edited.
AFter hearing objections, I then rewrote it, rretaining virtually only the structure, and replacing c 90% of the textual material originally supplied.
On further interpolations seeking more citations I supplied these, at the rate of c. one per paragraph.
I have collected encyclopaedias for many years and for the last 15, online as well. Whilst many have foornotes, It is rare to have more than 3 or 4 per page. It now appears that every 'factoid' must have more than one, independent source.
I have never encountered an editorial policy that refuses to accept intervews available (over a long period of time if not outside the Statute of Limitations) online, in the public domain, from reputable 'mainstream' media - until now.
A notice now says that verifying an incident, "based on one interview alone" in inadequate. Being above reproach is one thing, being being above common sense quite another.
I think I'll go back to my printed encyclopaedias, which are at least readable if sometimes opinionated, and leave others to their 'verifiable' booklets of logarithms and 'independent' scientific calculators.
--Posted by Wayland-smith on a biography comment page for rating an article. Moved here as it seemed more appropriate. Alan.ca 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Nomination of Vern Hughes for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vern Hughes 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/Vern Hughes 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Vern Hughes for deletion
edit The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vern Hughes (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.