| Revision as of 01:49, 10 July 2006 editSte4k (talk | contribs)3,630 edits Relevence← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:58, 14 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,791,302 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Cooperatives}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}, {{WikiProject Religion}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (212 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header|search=yes}} |
|
<!-- From Template:Oldafdfull -->{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;" |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|- |
|
|
|
{{Old AfD multi|date=1 July 2006|result=no consensus|page=Charles Buell Anderson}} |
|
| width="48px" | ] |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1= |
|
|| This article was nominated for ] on ]. The result of ] was '''no consensus'''. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Cooperatives|importance=}} |
| ⚫ |
|} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Mid}} |
|
Please feel free to place any comments, suggestions or questions regarding Endeavor Academy here. {{unsigned|Scottperry}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Mid|NRM=yes|NRMImp=High}} |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
Does this school meet ] or ]?? ] 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 ] either. ] 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. -] 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? ] 01:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::], 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. -] 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I see that now in the Style Guide, however, according to the ] guidelines: {{spam}} ] 17:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Adding a link to the official website is not "spamming" Misplaced Pages. -] 18:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:According to ] primary sources cannot be used, except for information about themselves, and also only if the information pertains to the subject's notability. ] 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== possible copyright violation of Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg == |
|
|
|
|
|
] has listed Chuck-anderson's-ea-bldg.jpg as a possible copyright violation. Reasons unknown. —] 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 ] ] 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Relevence == |
|
|
|
|
|
About the two external links on this page. What is the relevence? ] 01:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
