An editor has nominated the article Alfred de Grazia for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred de Grazia. Add four tildes like this ~~~~ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Alfred de Grazia during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your help with this article. What we need are reliable, third party sources that establish the biographical facts about Alfred. Also, in order to source his opinions more easily, we need third party sources that note his opinion in a way so we can be sure of its prominence. I do not agree with the removal of the PhD and teaching information, but unfortunately, there were no independent sources for this information, and Wikipedia can be strict on its sourcing standards.

You may find it useful to read WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE (the last one for the section on quantavolution and perhaps kalos if not the mainstream political science work).

I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.

Please help us!

ScienceApologist (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see I have reverted the changes you made. This is because I'm not sure of the quality of the sourcing. And in the case of the family, I don't think it's relevant - the article is not about Sebastian de Grazia or the other people mentioned. Could we discuss the points one by one on the talk page please. I am also making a post at the conflict of interest noticeboard and you might like to contribute to the discussion there too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amideg I saw you adding references to the bibliographic entries. Actually, bibliography is one thing that doesn't need a reference. The books themselves can be found in library catalogues, so there is independent evidence of their existence. Having said that, the reviews may be of interest to the article. Since you are editing with a conflict of interest, would you please add full references to the reviews to the article talk page, and then non-conflicted editors can discuss how to use the reviews. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Hello! Amideg, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Your upload of File:Alfred, 27 August 2003.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User claiming defamatory material about an heir on Wikipedia and Commons. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]