| Revision as of 15:45, 16 January 2007 editRadioKirk (talk | contribs)18,518 edits →Re: Deletion of the Spiritual Humanism article: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:24, 19 January 2007 edit undoJayden54Bot (talk | contribs)3,769 edits Bot notification of Article for Deletion: Spiritual HumanismNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| ::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) | ::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) | ||
| ==AfD Nomination: ]== | |||
| An editor has nominated the article ] for deletion, under the ] process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see ] and ]). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing ]. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article ] during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. ] 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:24, 19 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)
AfD Nomination: Spiritual Humanism
An editor has nominated the article Spiritual Humanism for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Misplaced Pages is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Spiritual Humanism during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)