| Revision as of 14:21, 23 March 2007 editPoliticalwatchmen (talk | contribs)64 edits →Matthew Revell← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:56, 24 March 2007 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits sources!!Next edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| Having looked at the history I note that an IP (62.30.68.94) is the main editor to thsi page, and that when signing on the Paul Uppal AFD page you used that IP address, therefore you are the main editor on your own page, I would suggest that this is a conflict of interest. If the IP 62.30.68.94 removes the prod then I will assume it is you removing it and could be viewed as vandalism, I suggest you check ] before taking any action. ] 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | Having looked at the history I note that an IP (62.30.68.94) is the main editor to thsi page, and that when signing on the Paul Uppal AFD page you used that IP address, therefore you are the main editor on your own page, I would suggest that this is a conflict of interest. If the IP 62.30.68.94 removes the prod then I will assume it is you removing it and could be viewed as vandalism, I suggest you check ] before taking any action. ] 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==proper references== | |||
| I--and everyone--will agree with Politicalwatchmen that there simply must be third party sources. This is especially and invariably necessary if it seems that it might be your autobio. There is a presumption of COI, and there are obvious very good reasons why WP looks at things that way. I'll be glad to remove the tag if you can get the refs in. If not, there isnt a chance it could or should be kept. Thus, it would not be advisable to remove it yourself. If they cant be found, you can yourself honorably request to have the article deleted. | |||
| As for Paul Uppal, not even the most inclusionist person here could possibly keep the article without third party references. Surely there ''must'' be newspaper stories--at least two are needed, from different papers, both being an article, not just a mention. Even with them it'll be hard, and it would do much better if he really is N enough to have multiple other media mentions preferably even before his latest candidacy. At this stage in his career, they are indispensible. Web availability helps, but technically just print is sufficient. If they aren't there, the reasonable conclusion will be that it is not a serious candidacy. Your web site says you are interested in entering local politics yourself. Start by learning about public relations, and get printed sources. I know I'd never vote for anybody if all I knew about them was their own web site. | |||
| ''']''' 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:56, 24 March 2007
Hello there, Matt, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Misplaced Pages:Help or add a question to the Village pump.
It's good to have another Brit on board, jimfbleak 17:13 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Fasthosts
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Ardenn 16:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
LugRadio
LugRadio has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this website might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Misplaced Pages:Notability (websites) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Misplaced Pages guidelines, it may be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Matthew Revell
Matthew Revell has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this person might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review WP:BIO for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.
If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that it meets Misplaced Pages guidelines, it may be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion for consensus. Politicalwatchmen 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at the history I note that an IP (62.30.68.94) is the main editor to thsi page, and that when signing on the Paul Uppal AFD page you used that IP address, therefore you are the main editor on your own page, I would suggest that this is a conflict of interest. If the IP 62.30.68.94 removes the prod then I will assume it is you removing it and could be viewed as vandalism, I suggest you check WP:NOT before taking any action. Politicalwatchmen 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
proper references
I--and everyone--will agree with Politicalwatchmen that there simply must be third party sources. This is especially and invariably necessary if it seems that it might be your autobio. There is a presumption of COI, and there are obvious very good reasons why WP looks at things that way. I'll be glad to remove the tag if you can get the refs in. If not, there isnt a chance it could or should be kept. Thus, it would not be advisable to remove it yourself. If they cant be found, you can yourself honorably request to have the article deleted.
As for Paul Uppal, not even the most inclusionist person here could possibly keep the article without third party references. Surely there must be newspaper stories--at least two are needed, from different papers, both being an article, not just a mention. Even with them it'll be hard, and it would do much better if he really is N enough to have multiple other media mentions preferably even before his latest candidacy. At this stage in his career, they are indispensible. Web availability helps, but technically just print is sufficient. If they aren't there, the reasonable conclusion will be that it is not a serious candidacy. Your web site says you are interested in entering local politics yourself. Start by learning about public relations, and get printed sources. I know I'd never vote for anybody if all I knew about them was their own web site. DGG 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)