Newest articles on Wikipedia
- 12:3512:35, 18 December 2024 Menzies and Churchill at War (hist | edit) [2,964 bytes] Duffbeerforme (talk | contribs)
- 12:3112:31, 18 December 2024 RPC Maringá (hist | edit) [3,242 bytes] RandomMe98 (talk | contribs)
- 12:2912:29, 18 December 2024 Jingtai Emperor's change of heirs apparent (hist | edit) [11,640 bytes] Min968 (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
- 12:2812:28, 18 December 2024 Quanzhou Qinggong F.C. (hist | edit) [2,600 bytes] EtVVV (talk | contribs)
- 12:2812:28, 18 December 2024 Gagan Harkara (sculpture) (hist | edit) [4,464 bytes] মোঃ সাকিবুল হাসান (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Hi
I posted the link (www.derrycityguide.com) at the top of the external link list. I have read the external link guidelines and although I have google ads on the site its primarily rich in content. The balance of ads versus content is very much in favour of the content. Take a look yourself you will see this is the case. There is no reason why this site shoud be excluded from the external link section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbob55 (talk • contribs)
- So why tell me? Why not do what I suggested on your talk page when you posted the {helpme} tag- talk to other users on the Derry talk page, and seek consensus to use that link? I'm not the boss of Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering why the Deek Magazine page was deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docillenstein (talk • contribs)
- I deleted it because another editor had tagged it as an article about a subject that didn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. If the magazine really does meet the notability guidelines, and if you can provide at least three significant, independent sources to prove that it meets those guidelines, and if you aren't an editor or owner of the magazine, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I would like to say that I did not know that i was not allowed to recreate the article. The first time i made it, it was deleted long before I finished. Secondly, Could you tell me what exactly needed to be improved? I wasn't exactly sure. Finally, do you happen to have a copy of what I wrote? It was good for me, and if I ever have to explain Ptyxur it would be helpful. Thank you.
Statue2 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you had finished, it would still have been about a subject that does not meet the notability guidelines, which require that articles be supported by multiple, nontrivial, independent sources- and that doesn't seem likely or possible about this subject. If you promise not to recreate the article here, I could email you the contents of the article for your own use- if you enable your email; it isn't currently enabled. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider a "Nontrivial Source"? The Diplomatic relations list on the Aerican empire's website?[1] The Charter signatories for the United Micronations? [www.groups.msn.com/unitedmicronations] What could be considered proof of our existence? Would it be notable that we sent this [micronationalproclamation.zoomshare.com] to many real world governments? And would it be at all possible to get what I wrote in the article? I won't re-post it unless you or someone else gives me the green light. Thank you.Statue2 11:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A "nontrivial source" would be several articles, with Ptyxur as their main subject, published in sources with a fact-checking editorial board- newspapers and magazines, for examples. I can't email you the deleted article until you enable the email function, which you haven't done yet.
Can you salt that page please? It's been re-created a third time. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied on the talk page there- I actually completely agree with you that it will probably end up being deleted, but at the moment, it doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate. And it would be possible to write a good, interesting article on the subject that was encyclopedic and sourced, though I don't think the creator is planning to do that. I don't think there's any particular hurry; it isn't as if it contains the entire text of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, like an article I deleted earlier this evening did. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked back, and you tagged that one, too. Go, you. -FisherQueen (Talk) 03:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted Miss metro-pacific with a log entry of "no assertion of notability". But this article was about an event, not an individual or a group, and I don't think that WP:CSD#A7 applies in such cases. It seems to me that this was a case for prod or AfD, so that reasons and sources for notability (if any exist) would have tome to be brought forward. Please consider undeleting this article DES (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm torn. I was working the Candidates for speedy deletion queue pretty quickly, and see your point about it being an arguable candidate, but there really isn't any evidence at all for notability on this; I even googled it. Can we use deletion review to undelete when the reasons and sources are brought forward? -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources aren't needed to avoid a speedy deletion. I note that Mutya ng plaridel is a precisely similar case. If you don't want to undelete these, or to discuss the matter further, i will simply bring them to deletion review as they stand. I don't see this as arguable at all, but as clearly outside the speedy criteria.
- If something doesn't fit one of the speedy criteria, i routinely convert a speedy tag to a prod or list it on afd, or simply remove the tag altogether. In fact, i drafted {{Speedy-Warn}} to notify people about speedy deletion tags that have been removed. Consider my recent edits to MoPo, Halleluiah (character), and Ef (band) as examples.
- Are you willing to discuss this with me further? DES (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it could be undeleted and sent to AFD or PROD, but is there any reasonable assumption that these would be kept? I understand your point DES that A7 doesn't apply to these articles, but at this point a deletion review or undelete -->WP:AFD/WP:PROD is process for process sake. Both the examples are clearly not notable and will be deleted whether it is today or 5 days from now. To me this is just evidence that A7 should be discussed to included events that fail the same notability requirements as the content currently under A7.--Isotope23 talk 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree, either wither the firm conclusion that these events are sure to be delted, or with any such extension of A7. DES (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd take a gentleman's wager of 1 barnstar that if both of these were listed at AFD and neither you nor I opined (or we both did, cancelling each other out) they would most certainly be deleted...--Isotope23 talk 17:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite possibly. Would you take that same wager at odd of 1000 to 1? IMO the odds would need to be of that order to justify an out-of-process speedy. If you take that, I'll put up $10 as soon as your certified check for $10,000 is sent to any neutral stakeholder. DES (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha ha, this was supposed to be a gentleman's wager... Even if I were interested in betting cold, hard, cash there is no way I could do it without giving some sort of trail back to my real life identity (
unless you want to take my money order for $100,000, cash it, and send the remainder on to my shipper in Nairobi... so, sorry but I'd have to politely decline.--Isotope23 talk 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Television shows are also not subject to A7 deletion. Pleaase consider being a little less quick on the trigger with speedies. DES (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what's back? Should the AfD be re-opened, or is this the same copy-vio content previously speedied? --Action Jackson IV 18:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
