User talk:Rileychilds

Hi Rileychilds: I've just argued for Rohrbach an der Lafnitz to be kept, and I noticed at the deletion discussion that you did not seem to be aware of the relevant notability policy. Whether something is worth having an article on is a matter of notability, not of whether the article is adequate. For certain categories of articles, including populated places, notability is automatic; see the explanation at the subpage on the notability of geographic features that I linked at the deletion discussion, but also see WP:Notability itself. If something does not fall into one of those categories, notability rests on the demonstration that reliable sources exist, not on how many of them are in the article, so it's generally not useful to nominate an article for deletion simply because it has few sources (or little information); rather, find a source or two yourself and add them, or make a post on the article's talk page. I see that the other article you nominated for deletion, Web 1.0, is on a demonstrably notable topic and your nomination statement is mostly about the poor referencing. The Articles for Deletion process is a dangerous way to get an article improved. Unless the article's creator is still active and reacts to the notice on their talkpage (your nomination statement for Rohrbach an der Lafnitz says the article has not been improved in 15 days, which makes me wonder whether you noticed it was created in 2007?), or unless through being placed on one of the lists for AfD discussions on particular topics, the nomination attracts sufficient editors interested in the topic, Wikipedia risks losing articles on viable topics—topics our readers might reasonably want to look up—simply because a week went by and no one noticed. Whereas if you either improve the article yourself or put a note on its talkpage, we are likely to wind up with a better article and that risk is not run. Please take a look at WP:BEFORE and remember that there is no deadline for finishing Wikipedia; unfortunately, there is one for AfD discussions. I agree wholeheartedly, many of our articles on places in particular are shameful little stubs. Please consider pitching in to help make a few of them better; that would be far more useful to the encyclopedia. (Which is not to say you should not nominate something for deletion if you find after a bit of investigation that the topic is not notable. Yes, there are quite a few of those, too, sadly.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from March 1st, 2013 – March 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

Delivered by User:EdwardsBot on behalf of Wikiproject Articles for Creation at 13:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at President of the United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)