User talk:Thecinematographer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy deletion of Light writing

A tag has been placed on Light writing, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. AntiVMan 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion because I think it was an error. However the article is substandard (see its talk page) and needs urgent work Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Light writing

It's getting better. I added 3 tags today which look stern but are to help you. For citations you may want to look at {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} as good examples of citations. You will also want(!) to look at http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Cite/Cite.php to see how references work if you are unfamiliar. Or ask me on my talk page. Fiddle Faddle 23:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done all I can. I've edited a little for format and citations. it needs more work form you or I am 90% certain it will be proposed for a full deletion discussion. Look at WP:RS and get reliable sources. Youtube is not a reliable source. nor are blogs. Fiddle Faddle 07:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

this is a new form of animation, no one has written about it

I can see the challenge here. Under these circumstances one must be perpetually vigilant to find new references, and continually improve those that are present. There is a danger if this does not happen that an editor will choose (as is their right) to propose the article for deletion. So it is vital to strive to show notability. The challenge is that the sources must be good otherwise people are likely to opt for deletion.

It also means that the article needs to be continually improved, because, as a generalisation, articles that are being worked on actively are less likely to be proposed for deletion than inactive ones. Fiddle Faddle —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

the page has more links, internal and external, and is organized more effectively

Looks now like a substantive page. It may still be accused of failing notability, but the article offers a good defence now. I think we are on the right side of the border. The more references that can be found that are not youtube, not forums, not blogs, the better the article becomes. For something so new I agree this is hard, but it is a notable animation technology. It;s just that proving it is hard. Fiddle Faddle 06:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)