| Revision as of 04:36, 16 January 2007 editRadioKirk (talk | contribs)18,518 edits clarification← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:45, 16 January 2007 edit undoRadioKirk (talk | contribs)18,518 edits →Re: Deletion of the Spiritual Humanism article: replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Please read ]: it's not whether the subject '''is''' notable; it's whether the article succeeds in '''establishing''' notability. The article may survive if that requirement is met; the article as written quite simply did not, sorry. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | Please read ]: it's not whether the subject '''is''' notable; it's whether the article succeeds in '''establishing''' notability. The article may survive if that requirement is met; the article as written quite simply did not, sorry. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| It was requested that the article be deleted because it failed to establish notability; that is a criterion for ]. If a deleted article is re-created with substantial improvement to the point that notability is established, it is likely to remain. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | :It was requested that the article be deleted because it failed to establish notability; that is a criterion for ]. If a deleted article is re-created with substantial improvement to the point that notability is established, it is likely to remain. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Thanks for the suggestion, but a "courtesy note" is impractical for several reasons, not the least of which involves the handling of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of requests. Also, while I understand the frustration that can come with the loss of one's work, I must ask that you read ]; each of us is contributing a small part to "the sum total of human knowledge", not taking credit for our work. Harsh, perhaps, but necessary. <tt style="color:#161;">RadioKirk<small> (]|]|])</small></tt> 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:45, 16 January 2007
Re: Deletion of the Spiritual Humanism article
Please read WP:N: it's not whether the subject is notable; it's whether the article succeeds in establishing notability. The article may survive if that requirement is met; the article as written quite simply did not, sorry. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was requested that the article be deleted because it failed to establish notability; that is a criterion for "speedy" deletion. If a deleted article is re-created with substantial improvement to the point that notability is established, it is likely to remain. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion, but a "courtesy note" is impractical for several reasons, not the least of which involves the handling of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of requests. Also, while I understand the frustration that can come with the loss of one's work, I must ask that you read WP:OWN; each of us is contributing a small part to "the sum total of human knowledge", not taking credit for our work. Harsh, perhaps, but necessary. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)