Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:31, 13 March 2013

Archives

May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 April 2007 January 2008 February 2008 May 2008 June 2009 July 2009 November 2009 July 2011 October 2011 July 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Click here to start a new talk section.

Restoring Information regarding Ipswich City Council

Hi

I added Events section with a link to Events search on Ipswich City Council's Misplaced Pages page, which you have removed. Its not a promotion, its helping users (local and visitors) to find the events happening in Ipswich City. I dont need to promote it on Misplaced Pages, as Council website easily comes top on Google but I just thought to provide information in Misplaced Pages where people of Ipswich find at more than one place.

By putting this information, I had no intention of promoting Ipswich City Council website, but that's where people of IPswich get and put information about (their) Events.

Please undo your action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iupdate (talk • contribs) 01:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It is spam, under our policies. City of Ipswich is an encyclopedia article about the town. It's not meant to be a replacement for the Ipswich City Council website. For one thing, the events page is already part of the City Council page, which is linked, making that link entirely redundant. Secondly, you keep trying to add a link where you explicitly encourage people to go there and post; that is absolutely WP:SPAM as we don't allow users to solicit anything here. By your own reasoning, if it's so high on a Google search, users shouldn't have any trouble finding it, anyway. At the very root of it, the fact is that you are explicitly a single purpose account with a clear and definite conflict of interest, which means you need to tread extra carefully. As per our policies, if you continue to post disruptive content that serves only to promote your organization and does nothing to help build the site, you may be blocked from editing. InShaneee (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Willow Creek SA

Hello InShaneee, I nominated Willow Creek SA for AfD before noticing all the copyvio and CSDing it. The AfD page is still standing so would you be able to close/delete it. I was going to speedy it under G6 or G8 but wasn't sure if that was appropriate. Cheers, Cabe6403 09:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know! InShaneee (talk) 09:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, cheers for taking care of it. Cabe6403 11:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please help me understand why my article was deleted

Hi,

I noticed that you have marked my article for speedy deletion stating A7 as the reason and it has been deleted. I feel that the condition of notability has been randomly applied as there are many other similar articles which have nothing notable (do not want to list them here, but if you send me an e-mail ID, I can send you a list). I request admins to either apply this rule consistently or not apply at all. My article has only facts about a product and does not advertise in any way. I feel the topic is notable because it is one of the few products on internet which have successfully used NLP on a large scale and provide the results free of costs to consumers to help them make purchase decisions. Does it only matter if there are writeups about the product on other sites which may not even be authentic? I feel the argument given is very weak. If you still feel the article does not deserve to have a page, please atleast userify it so that someday I can hope to get it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz7286 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't 'randomly applied'; rather, the site isn't perfect, and sometimes pages that aren't quite up to standards slip past us. If you've seen such pages, you are more than welcome to tag them for cleanup or deletion to help out the wiki. You're correct, your page wasn't overtly advertising, but that's not why it was deleted; specifically, it was deleted due to an inherent lack of notability. For what kinds of things it takes for a service to be considered notable, I direct you to our notability guideline for web content. The short version is that the subject must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works independent to the site itself. This includes things such as articles in major news outlets concerning the site. The article as you wrote it had zero sources from third parties. For the time being, I will userfy the page to your sandbox, but know that if the article cannot be made to meet the guideline I linked before you attempt to post it again, it will simply be deleted once more. InShaneee (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks InShanee for the clarification. Please look at TechRadar. The only reference which they have is the Alexa page. Do references like those suffice? If yes, I could add links to Alexa and others. If these are one off instances, I would agree. But there are a huge number of such pages. I still feel the criterion used is unfair and dependent on the admin reviewing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz7286 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the criteria seem pretty concrete and easy to apply to me; of course, if you disagree, you're welcome to propose changes to the policy here. It wouldn't surprise me if there are a relatively large number of those pages, but Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project; the best way to fix a problem is to start in on it yourself. Back to your article, Alexa is a nice reference to have, but it doesn't typically establish notability by itself. Per the guideline, Alexa isn't really a 'published work', since it's a machine compiled database. If you've got any other third party sources, feel free to leave a link here, and I can look them over if you'd like. InShaneee (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust deletion

Did you even look at the page before you took action? I am protesting your work in disappearing the article.refrence:http://en.wikipedia.org/Folly_Wildlife_Rescue_Trust Please do not hold my personal indignation about the article deletion against the editor who created the page. I have nothing to do with the editor other than trying to help add more notability to the article. Which is what i was doing when I saw it is now GONE! The article was even changed from "stub" to article and all objections and suggestions that were made to the creator were done. As a researcher myself, I learned quite a bit of information that was previously unknown to myself by reading the article and learning about the Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust. I'm personally astounded that admin on Misplaced Pages would work so hard at putting obstacles to this information being published in the way. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like most recently it was moved out of the article space due to a deletion discussion, one which I did not take part in, nor was I even aware of, so I'm not really the guy to talk to here. I don't think there's really much I can say here that wasn't already well said on that deletion discussion, so I'll just point you to our notability guidelines for organizations, which is what the users at that discussion were finding at issue. InShaneee (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Corner Tube Boilers: rewritten

Hello InShaneee I wrote my first article about the concept of Cornertube boilers on 16th Jan 2013 which was nominated and hence deleted speedily because of lack of notability and copyright infringement policy of WP. I have rewritten the article this time without any copy-paste methods and with third party resources and its still in process in my sandbox. I would like to ask for your opinion and comments on the present article and in case I have done some mistake which will nominate it for speedy deletion it is completely UNINTENTIONAL. Thank you for your time and effort to make this article better in advance. Ghorpaapi (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

1. "!".