User talk:HenryShooter

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last seven days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Henry. Hopefully you haven't abandoned ship - we need more younger types like yourself. =)

What I'm seeing right now is simple: you, confused. You found this, it's a big confusing something or other, and you don't quite know what to do. So you put up an article or two, and one's gone, but the other one is up for deletion, with the other participants in the latter discussion

In any event, I want you to look at

The best tip I can give, by the way, is to not take it too seriously. After all, it's like the rest of the internet - it's all just 1s and 0s.

In any event, again, welcome - despite circumstances.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little note, I've changed my "!vote", I've suggested that we basically userfy it for you - that is, put it as a sub page on your user page. Here, you'll be able to polish it up with no fear that it will come up for deletion - unless, of course, you request it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. I found your article Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun when I went to the articles for deletion page. It does seem to be a bad way to welcome a new editor to the cause and I'm sorry that some of the other wikipedians out there don't seem to be concerned about the ramifications of deleting someone's first article. I hope that you won't take it too seriously. In my opinion (I actually read your article, although I suspect some haven't), it is reasonably well written. I certainly would not have been able to write that well when I was fifteen (I'm now 29 and sometimes submit not at that standard). Unfortunately it will probably get deleted as in reality it probably doesn't meet the criteria for a wiki article (although if you stay long enough you will find that there is a lot of stuff out there that is worse that has not been deleted).

What I can suggest is that you save the article to your home computer (or whatever), if you haven't already done so, that way your work won't be lost. Also, you may consider trying to contribute to some of the established articles after reading the guidelines on editing. Once you have gotten some more experience you will learn the best way to write your own articles and then you can go from there.

Perhaps there is a way that you can incorporate some of what you have already written into the

Anyway, if you have any questions, I'm happy to help if I can. Just drop me a line on my talk page. Keep your chin up...it's easier for them to hit! Sorry, bad Aussie sense of humour. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WRT to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun -- I read Submachine Gun vs Combat Shotgun with interest. I hope you can re-use it elsewhere, maybe for extra credit at school.

I have to agree with the challengers, however -- aspects of the article currently render it unsuitable here.

A minor thing first -- over-use of acronyms.

Second, many of the terms for which you used acronyms should have been wiki-linked.

The clincher however is a lack of inline references. If the opinions in this article were backed by references to verifiable, authoritative sources, then I think it could easily withstand challenges.

Perhaps the easiest step, if you wanted to fight for your article, would be find one or two references that talk about this topic, and then radically cut the article down to only what can be backed up by those references. Then, once it survives the afd, you could worry about looking for more references that would back up the portions that had to be cut to comply with

Let me repeat I read the article with interest. And I hope you continue to contribute to the project.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of references, and a did a bit of trimming of passages likely to be regarded as "original research".

I think it is possible for this article to survive if two-thirds of it were excised, until you can find more references. Geo Swan (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]