Roger3b
Re: Faster mustache
editI deleted it because it was tagged by another editor as failing our speedy deletion criteria - specifically #A7, which concerns groups without any contention of notability. If you have reason to believe this group belongs in an encyclopedia, you're welcome to recreate the article with that information present. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- The last article to sit there doesn't really have anything worth recovering. As I said, you're welcome to recreate it if you include evidence of some kind of notability. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Verifiability isn't the problem, per se. Notability is the problem here. Whilst you may be able to verify the existance of the group, I sincerely doubt you will be able to prove the group to be notable.
- Here's our welcome message for new user, which has some handy hints and tips available by following the links that explain what Wikipedia is and isnt.
Welcome, Roger3b!
Hello, Roger3b, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Redvers, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Fun stuff...
{{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Editing time
editThanks for your note. I see you continue to claim you had no chance to add the notability proof you say you have available.
When the article was first created on 16 November 2005, you had 13 hours to provide evidence of notability. You didn't and the article was deleted.
You recreated the article on 10 April 2006. You had 22 hours to provide evidence of notability. You didn't and the article was deleted.
You recreated the article again today. You didn't provide notability when you saved the article. This time we didn't even try to provide you with hours to provide notability. The article was just deleted.
You recreated the article yet again, this time inserting the word "notable" into the article in order to prove the notability of the subject, but didn't provide proof of notability before saving the article. The article was therefore deleted for the fourth time for not asserting or proving notability.
After that, the article was protected as it had wasted the time of a total of six Wikipedia editors who had to examine it, find a lack of notability, tag it and delete it between them.
Understandably, having given you hours and hours, plus 10 presses of the save button, to prove notability of this bicycling club, it's unlikely that the protection will now be lifted. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Faster Mustache
editI don't see how an article on Faster Mustache could meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. However, if you would like to try again, I suggest that you create the article at User:Roger3b/Faster Mustache and make sure everything is the way you want it. It will not be deleted from this location, so you can take all the time you want. Then, when the article is ready, add it to the list at WP:AFC. Be sure to cite some sources such as news articles - the information in the article has to be verifiable by other editors. -SCEhardT 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your message on User talk:Give Union, it turns out that Seth Lore and Irwinton Historic District in Eufaula, Alabama does indeed have 666 contributing properties. There is also one contributing structure that isn't a building, and 199 buildings in the district that don't contribute. (I have a copy of the NRIS database, so I checked.) In this case, 666 is an actual count, not the Number of the Beast. I believe these were all good-faith edits. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would you call me a vandal? That's rude and untrue. -Give Union 21:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)