| Revision as of 04:08, 15 July 2006 editSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits Cleanup← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:58, 15 July 2006 edit undoSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits Original ResearchNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| This article needs to be factually verified, cleaned up in general after the recent merge. ] 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | This article needs to be factually verified, cleaned up in general after the recent merge. ] 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Original Research == | |||
| Will, I'm reverting your insertion because it is unsourced. A + B does not equal C. There isn't any mention of anyone at the Endeavor Website named Anderson. "Master Teacher", yes. Anderson? no. ] 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:58, 15 July 2006
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-01. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
 |
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page. |
Please feel free to place any comments, suggestions or questions regarding Endeavor Academy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottperry (talk • contribs)
Does this school meet WP:CORP or WP:BIO?? Ste4k 11:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the importance of this article, are there any headlines, or anything else of national recognition that show the dispute between this school and its student to be on the scale of perhaps Waco, or otherwise notorious? If not, then this page looks more like some sort of troll bait. I removed both the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link. This school may indeed exist, but it doesn't appear to be as notable as say, Columbine High School, or any other media breaking school. It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG either. Ste4k 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't answer your questions, but it is standard to include a link to the official website of any subject, be it a person or institution. So far as I can see, there's no reason to adopt a different standard for this article. -Will Beback 01:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Whatever standard you are mentioning is news to me. It may be standard for people and/or organizations to add one without a sufficient review of policy, but that doesn't change policy at all. What could be the purpose for such a link, especially since anything on pages there couldn't be used for any content? Ste4k 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- WP:EL#What should be linked to, see item #1. The purpose is so that readers wishing to learn more have an authoritative link. It's not true that we can't use a subject for a source. They have just as much significance as a source as any other. We don't exclude autobiographies as sources, we just recognize that they are another POV. -Will Beback 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the WP:SPAM guidelines: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Ste4k 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Adding a link to the official website is not "spamming" Misplaced Pages. -Will Beback 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to WP:VER primary sources cannot be used, except for information about themselves, and also only if the information pertains to the subject's notability. Ste4k 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
possible copyright violation of Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg
User:Ste4k has listed Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg as a possible copyright violation. Reasons unknown. —Antireconciler 03:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, if you go to the listed source of the image, you will find nothing there at all except a test page. Images need to list their source as well as rationale for why they may be used as fair-use, etc. See WP:CV Ste4k 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Relevence
About the two external links on this page. What is the relevence? Ste4k 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Original Research
Does this article have any sources? Ste4k 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it has: zero + however many are in it, and will be added in response to your request for citations. :) Sethie 03:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge Proposal
- copied from Talk:Charles Buell Anderson
I was looking over the final results of this article's AfD, and I didn't see anyone that explicitly had a problem with merging this into Endeavor Academy. I don't think it would be hard to put together a short, well-referenced article at Endeavor Academy that included all of the verifiable info here. I'll leave this open for discussion for a while, but if no one objects I'm going to be bold and merge it myself. --Nscheffey 08:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Be bold. The objection took the form of those who specifically voted to delete after a merge had been proposed. I haven't any objection to a merge at all. I do, on the other hand, have an objection to extremely thick conversations over umpteen individual issues that get bogged down into long talk pages which are difficult to traverse and lead toward a standstill rather than any consensus. If you think that we can discuss the newly merged article with that in mind, I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. Ste4k 11:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. —Antireconciler 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- nice job. Ste4k 04:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. —Antireconciler 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
This article needs to be factually verified, cleaned up in general after the recent merge. Ste4k 04:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Original Research
Will, I'm reverting your insertion because it is unsourced. A + B does not equal C. There isn't any mention of anyone at the Endeavor Website named Anderson. "Master Teacher", yes. Anderson? no. Ste4k 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)