User talk:Brian a lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sesquiannual

Sesquiannual has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this was more a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia article. Please review WP:WINAD for the relevant policy and improve the article if possible. If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the prod notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the message. Please remember to sign posts on talk pages by typing ~~~~, which leaves a link to your user page and a date stamp.

For the record, I wasn't involved in the deletion. I just saw that it was up for deletion and thought you'd like to know. As far as recreating the article, because it was deleted thru prod that is okay. If it was deleted thru AfD, a discussion-oriented process, it would not be okay to recreate, because that deletion decision is basically final. If you want to preserve the work you did on it before, you can ask the admin who deleted it, User:Doc glasgow, to restore it, per the proposed guidelines at WP:PROD#Closing guidelines for administrators.

But I wouldn't recreate it. The fact that similar entries exist is a case for not creating this article, IMO. I think a reader would be better served to find this information along with a lot of relevant information under "annual" instead of jumping around to a different article for each kind of annual celebration. What you might do to aid the reader is create a Wikipedia:Redirect, so that if a reader searches for sesquiannual, they'll immediately find themselves at the annual article, where all the information is. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pk touch article

Someone, not me, has nominated your Pk Touch article for deletion on October 30, 2007. Everything written in the article is also available off-Wiki. If you want to save it, I suggest you revise it. I think it should also be renamed PK Touch. Not sure if it's worth saving though, since you probably won't be allowed to reveal the method behind it, so what's the point. (which I don't know). 76.7.95.112 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)