Talk:Silicon Gorge

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Silicon Gorge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bristol Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article needs at least one photograph to be added
	This article needs a map
	This article needs to have an infobox added

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

Is this article neccessary?[edit]

Is this article neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No articles are necessary. This one is on a notable subject, with sources in the article showing notability, so is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The statement that there is "no likelihood of this becoming a useful article" is simply guesswork, which is not a good basis for making editorial decisions. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, perhaps a candidate for Wiktionary. WP:Stub suggests:

While a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If little other information is ever likely to be added, the entry should go to our sister project, Wiktionary. The distinction between dictionary and encyclopedia articles is best expressed by the use–mention distinction: A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase.

I base my reasoning on the fact that since created in 2007 the only additions have been category templates and one citation. Both references in fact point at the same source, the report / book by Konstadakopoulos and others. There doesn't seem to be much else out there and no evidence that anyone wants to expand the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Silicon Gorge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110710000726/http%3A//www.southwestengland.co.uk/working_for_the_region/areas/west_of_england.aspx to http://southwestengland.co.uk/working_for_the_region/areas/west_of_england.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]