Talk:Ragabonds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about a group which has raised nearly £60k for UK charities in its first 8 months. More content is to follow.

I notice that the user who marked it for rapid deletion has a history of overzealously marking pages for deletion when they are still in their infancy.

You may want to explain the notability of the group in the article, citing reliable sources. What you call "overzealous marking of pages for deletion" is also called new pages patrolling. To someone who isn't familiar with the sheer volume of non-encyclopedic new articles the number of routine deletions can indeed be surprising. What you see in my edit history is just the tip of the iceberg; most articles I have tagged today have been reviewed by an admin and deleted. Weregerbil 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the time this artical has been live for with no problems i am looking to remove the rapid deletion tag. SkippyUK 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] author's note

I am currently putting together further wikipedia links to contextualize this page. Rather than a 'vanity page', it is an information site for those who want to know more about the 'idea' of Ragabonds.

Just as a further bit of information, this is the UK's only "rag for graduates", so representing a unique group on a national scale.

Sadly, the problem with most pages to do with fundraising is getting reliable information sources, as the community is rarely written about! --Huseyx2 13:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources can be a major problem. Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion is verifiability using reliable sources. Weregerbil 13:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am inviting other contacts who have better sources than I to take part in improving the article, which will require a little patience! I was a little(!) surprised to see the deletion box on the page within minutes of starting it - I'm sure you're aware that it takes longer than that to write a decent, informative article! --Huseyx2 14:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a badly documented subject so please bear with us while we sort this out.Simon.painter 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page rewrite

I've marked problems with this article. It's self-advertising, apparently done by the group itself, contrary to WP:CONFLICT. It coins a new word, while pretending that it is in common use. There are no links to or from this article, except to its own Web page. It makes several statements which are peacock language, contrary to WP:PEACOCK.

It's been up for over a year, and they have had plenty of time to fix problems. Being a charity does not exempt a group from following Wiki guidelines.

This page should either be fixed immediately, or given a speedy deletion tag.

67.169.126.27 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)