Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) at 14:12, 8 July 2011 (Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Diego Grez/Archive 29.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Diego Grez/Navbar User:Diego Grez/Chile User:Diego Grez/format

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

Archives

User:Diego Grez/Archive index

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Please leave a new message. I answer posts on the same page.

Deletion of

You proposed that Guy-Greenbrier earthquake swarm be deleted. This is a sourced article and an on-going event. A Google search finds numerous sources that could be included. I'm curious why this considered an uncontroversial deletion? If you thought that it was non-notable — despite the article passing the usual Google search litmus tests — why not initiate a discussion on the talk page first to allow a few days for editors to respond? The deletion process has become perhaps the most off-putting aspect of Misplaced Pages to new editors. I've been around here for a while so a proposed deletion of my articles, like this one, doesn't phase me. But if this article had been created by a new editor, it certainly would have contributed to the harmful and popular idea that Misplaced Pages is controlled by a few editors and perhaps resulted in that new editor not contributing further. People at the Strategy Wiki keep wondering about editor retention and keep assuming that a gender bias, blah blah blash, is the reason all the while ignoring obvious problems like deletionism. Please keep in mind Misplaced Pages:NOTPAPER. Having articles on smaller topics doesn't hurt anything. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)