User talk:Realreview

Talk pages

Please do not blank the contents of article talk pages, as you did with this edit to Talk:Michael D. Genseal. The purpose of the talk page is for editors to discuss the article and any changes necessary to it. Blanking the page prevents Wikipedia editors from reaching a proper consensus. Remember, once you post an article or comment on Wikipeida, you no longer own it; rather it becomes the property of the community at large. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Michael D. Genseal

I have nominated Michael D. Genseal, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael D. Genseal. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the personal attack you made on this page. Please see WP:NPA and WP:AGF. In addition, have you read WP:BIO? A Google search for "Michael D. Genseal" comes up with with one hit. That does not meet the requirements at WP:RS. If you have reliable sources, please post them, and please don't be defensive or argumentative when people point you to Wikipedia rules. New editors frequently don't understand the requirements here, it just means they're new, it doesn't mean they're intentionally doing wrong, any more than people attempting to enforce Wikipedia's rules are doing anything wrong. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==Suggestion in support of validation== In order to check sources in Google (beyond the one hit mentioned), use "Michael Genseal" rather than Michael D. Genseal. Rarely are google searches as specific as to use a middle initial for anyone. Comments we have made are not personal attacks. They are statements of position and opinion of our committee. We believe we should be able to provide factual information about our notable residents with out being censored. We further believe that people interested in knowing more about our community should be able to learn about its notable residents even if the magnitude of notability is somehow less than say a U.S. President or a sports figure. Thank you for your consideration. --RealReview (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel as if this nomination is somehow a personal issue against you as an editor. It is not. Wikipedia has guidelines. I did not write them, but I do agree with them. And so must every other editor of Wikipedia. These guidelines are the result of community consensus on what we, the Wikipedia user community, want Wikipedia to be. The guidelines for notability and verifiability are quite clear, and Mr. Genseal just does not meet those criteria. That doesn't mean he isn't a good and valuable person, but Wikipedia cannot contain articles on every good and valuable person in the world. If you can improve the article to show verifiable third-party coverage of Mr. Genseal (interviews in industry journals, etc.) that would go a long way to proving Mr. Genseal's notability. If you feel that the guidelines on notability are too restrictive and somehow preclude inclusion of important material, you are free to open that discussion (you could post a note at Wikipedia talk:Notability to get that ball rolling). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried explaining to you that Wikipedia requires verifiability, and not Existence. You were unable to provide sources from which to write a bio, and nobody else was able to find any. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2009 (U

NOTE - We have blanked (deleted) the article in order to close this open issue. We regret that out newness to Wikipedia led to such a discusion. Thank you - --RealReview (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Certified Energy Manager

The article Certified Energy Manager has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The "Certified Energy Manager" title is used by many organizations around the world. As it stands, the article is exclusively about AEE, and there aren't enough AEE-specific reliable sources to satisfy the notability guideline. In addition, article also has inappropriate tone.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- intgr [talk] 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]