User talk:WRothstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] William stephen rothstein

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article William stephen rothstein, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pan Dan 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HI PAN DAN,

Thanks for your comments regarding WILIAM STEPHEN ROTHSTEIN. I was requested to supply a few third party sources, which I did promptly. In face, I supplied 6 different third party sources. Was that not enough? If you feel it necessary to delet the article, so be it. I'm simply confused, since I was aked for further information, I supplied firther information, and that doesn't seem to satisfy your needs. Thanks for your time.

As I explained in my deletion reason, the sources have to actually be about this person or his work, so we can use those sources to write an encyclopedia article. The sources cannot be ones actually written by the person. Please also refer to the guidelines I linked to in my deletion reason, Criteria for inclusion of biographies and Avoid conflict of interest. Pan Dan 14:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HI AGAIN, PAN DAN,

Thank you for your response. I am assuming from your response that you did not look at the third party sources I cited, since they WERE about the subject. There was a bio at the end of each article cited, which corroberated everything listed in the original piece. Again, it seems that you are anxious to delete my item, and it seems clear I cannot do anything to avoid that. The sources ARE about WILLIAM STEPHEN ROTHSTEIN, but you have the final word. I appreciate your time.

Noting that you wrote "www.findarticles.com will also bring up a vast source of much of the work of writer and photographer WILLIAM STEPHEN ROTHSTEIN (formerly William Stephen Carrino)," I assumed you had provided work by him, not about him. Still, I did look in Lexis-Nexis for the first item you listed (St. Petersburg Times), and didn't find it. A full-text search of the St. Petersburg Times of either "rothstein" or "carrino" in all of 1995 yielded nothing to do with William Stephen.

I should mention that I have neither the "final word" nor the power to delete this article. Whether you remove the tag (in which case it goes to WP:AFD) or not, only an admin can delete the article. Pan Dan 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pan Dan,

Your assumption regarding "findarticles.com is incorrect. You would have seen at the end of each article, there is a biography of the writer, WRITTEN BY THE PUBLICATION. I am not familiar with Lexis-Nexis, but if nothing is comin up under the name in the St. Pete Times, then Lexis-Nexis is not a very good search vehicle. If you looked at findarticles.com, you would have immediately seen the American Forests article, and the appropriate bio, again...written by the publication.

I didn't anticipate such a trivial back and forth regarding something so simple...and while I thank you for your efforts, it seems clear that you've made some mistakes.

Nope, can't find any relevant search results at findarticles.com either. Give me the url if you like. But the bottom line is that you should not write about yourself on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 15:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pan Dan, Not sure how you're searching, but "findarticles.com" is about as user friendly as can be...and the AMERICAN FORESTS article is right there in black and white. However...since you've spelled out the bottom line, why are we wasting our time? Take care.