Talk:Ideal Home

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a clear-cut abuse of process, a predecessor to this article was deleted after a contested prod was restored. Why do we have admins who don't read policy before they act? I can't even find out who was responsible for this outrage. Piccadilly 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to explain the outrage you talk about. Contesting a prod consists of more than just deleting it and doing nothing to the article. Once more, provide verifiable secondary sources to back your claims of notability and there's no problem. Easy if it's "one of the best known magazines in the UK" as you have already stated. Best wishes, The Rambling Man 18:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are just wrong about procedure. I'm not interested in this magazine, but when I see misconduct on Wikipedia, I fight it in the interests of this project. Piccadilly 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but you must assert notability by provision of reliable sources. Do that and the article remains. Lazily removing prod's without remedying the situation is wholly inappropriate. The Rambling Man 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no such obligations. Prod was introduced for uncontroversial deletions, and this is not uncontroversial. I don't know anything about the magazine, but despite my complete lack of interest in its subject matter I know it is prominent. I have no duty to write any article, but I have helped wikipedia by saving an article about a topic that has been neglected due to systemic bias, ie we don't cover the interests of middle aged women well. Your attempts to make me feel guilty are absurd. If we don't want other people to be put to the (entirely voluntary) trouble of writing articles, what are we doing involved with Wikipedia at all? Piccadilly 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited out the first paragraph as it's simply stating in less certain terms the details given in the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.9.188.22 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)