User talk:Clinegroup
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Scuba research, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Calton | Talk 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Scuba research, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Coren 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I can understand where you are coming from, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research, regardless of how needed or reasonable it is. You might want to read the policy to understand the rationale behind it. Coren 03:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Coren,
Hi. Thanks. I just looked up the WP:NOR Rule, and this does not qualify. All these sources are verifiable. We have been producing this research for over 15 years. My credentials are credible and verifiable. There is nothing new, just a collection of resources, which is what I thought this format was designed for?
Does that help in any way?
William