User talk:Eulogy4Afriend
Hello[edit]
Welcome to wikipedia.
Note that this is merely a gentle proposal, not a demand for immediate deletion. People are free to disagree, and so you did.
I'm a little old fashioned in my interpretation of article ownership so typically I don't recognise or inform article authors as such. However if you have the article on your watchlist, you will still be informed of a proposed deletion, so things will typically end up the same way.
I put forward a proposal to delete mainly because I couldn't find a good reference that established why Mike Salisbury is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Could you edit the article or the article talk page to explain?
I did have a second reason to put forward a proposed deletion here, though, and that's that I suspected that perhaps you are in some way associated with Mike Salisbury? I apologise if this is not the case, or if you are editing in good faith. It's just that we get a lot of people who come here and think it's ok to use wikipedia to advertise, which of course it's not. If you're not advertising, that's fine.
--Kim Bruning 07:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Good morning (GMT time); just to remind you that I replied to your comment on my talk page (link, above) regarding The Last Waltz. The reply details what I think could be improved, as you requested in the original post.
Regards,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 03:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Tyler Cassity[edit]
An editor has nominated Tyler Cassity, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
I agree with Elisson's view, and he put it much better than I could have done so I don't think I have much more to add on the AfAs in question. The request that the articles should not be merged or deleted until they are fully developed, btw, are contrary to how this place works. If thinking a bit, one quickly realises that this practise would leave to all kinds of material staying on the wiki forever... rather, when things are questioned, facts need to be supported and articles need to be shown to be notable, or facts/articles will be removed.
My personal suggestion would be to start working on articles about the trend/movement and the establishments it has resulted in, rather than certain individuals. If you claim that several people in this field are notable in themself for their role in this movemenet, there must be much more to write about the field as such. // habj 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)