Talk:Manhattan Mini Storage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
Manhattan Mini Storage is the largest self storage company on the East Coast of the US. Is that not notable? If not, then can someone please tell me under what criteria a self storage company would be considered notable? Zillionaire 12:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Someone unrelated to the company has to write about it, pretty much. You could be the largest supplier of pork bellies in the USA, but you're not notable until someone has taken note of you. PumeleonT 12:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- OK, well I'm not related to this company. I wrote about it purely because it was a topic I thought of while writing about storage options for Columbia University students (see here). Zillionaire 12:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks. In the next 10 minutes or so, I'll include some secondary sources in the article. Zillionaire 12:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] May speedy deletion tag be removed?
Is the article now sufficiently developed to remove the speedy deletion tag? As it stands now, I don't think any deletion should be performed without a deletion discussion. So perhaps a normal deletion tag would be more appropriate. Zillionaire 13:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The
{{db-inc}}tag clearly states "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" so I have restored it ... as for the references you have added, they still do not provide enough Attribution to satisfy Notability (organizations and companies), i.e.,
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources ... see WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability#Sources of questionable reliability ... blogs and Google search results are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards ... references to published books should at a minimum include an ISBN (see what happens when you click the one I added) ... use"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources."
{{cite book}}to include page numbers, and{{cite news}}for newspaper articles ... the point is that if a source is not accessible from the web, then an editor should be able to go to a library and confirm it in print. —72.75.73.158 17:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Still lacks WP:A to satisfy WP:CORP
It's been nearly a week since the {{db-inc}} was removed, and IMHO, this article still lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the criteria of Notability (organizations and companies) ... even though I have turned the explicit external links into proper {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} citations, references to blogs and the results of a Google Book Search on the subject's name are hardly reliable sources ... consequently, I intend to {{prod}} this article Real Soon Now, and we'll see if there is any improvement over the next five days before it expires.
Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tagging this article for speedy deletion
Hello ... I encountered this newly created article while performing New Page Patrol or Counter Vandalism Unit activities.
In my opinion it lacks sufficient Attribution to satisfy the Notability criteria Organizations and Companies ... or perhaps it reads like Vanispmcruftisment, or may violate Conflict of Interest.
The point is that I plan to tag this article with either a speedy delete (A7) or a {{prod}} that explains my concern(s) in detail ... I have created this initial entry on the article's Discussion page in the hope that Administrators and other editors, including the original author (Zillionaire (talk · contribs)), will also comment on their actions here.
- Other experienced editors: Please see the protocol defined in What to do if a speedy delete tag is removed and try to keep the speedy delete process from occurring Too Quickly, like when a WikiNewbie creates a "work in progress" stub instead of using their own sandbox first. The important thing to remember about this new paradigm is
-
-
Flag it, then tag it, THEN frag it!
-
- In other words, announce your intention to tag (flag the author and Discussion pages first), and have a "time-out" before proceeding with the tag ... and if the tag is removed, either proceed to the next step in the protocol, or else MOVE ON.
-
- Administrators: If you do speedy delete this article, then in the spirit of WP:Please do not bite the newcomers, consider leaving a note on the Talk page for Zillionaire (talk · contribs) ... explain that you concur with the reasons for the speedy deletion, and have exercised your authority as an Administrator to delete it ... this should shorten the time it takes for the author to appeal for restoration of the article because it was just an unfinished "work in progress," or they neglected to tag it as a WP:STUB.
-
- It would certainly require a little extra time and effort for you, but it may keep Some Other Editor from being blocked for reverting the deletion of tags after an article has been recreated, all because there was no paper trail ... after all, I took the time to start a message thread about this article on their Talk page, so all you have to do is append your own "stencil" message ... this is for that Very Small percentage of cases where a mistake has been made by being Too Hasty in our collective judgment of this article's unworthiness for inclusion in Wikipedia as presented for the first time. :-)
I think we can all agree that Haste is the Dark Side of the Speedy Deletion process, and these draft protocols are designed to "soften the blows" of the "iron fist in the velvet glove" ... for all of the parties involved.
Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ManahattanStorageAdTimeOut2003.pdf
Image:ManahattanStorageAdTimeOut2003.pdf is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
