User talk:Sils660

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Steve.museum. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve.museum

You have recently re-created the article Steve.museum, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. . If you want to work on this page, perhaps create it in your user space instaed of the main article space, and then move it once completed. For example, your could creat it here: User:Sils660/Steve.museum --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve.museum

A tag has been placed on Steve.museum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article is a repost of either already posted material, or of material that was previously deleted under Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. If you can indicate how Steve.museum is different from all other articles, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}}, and also put a note on Talk:Steve.museum saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions.Missvain 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was technically NOT reposted. The material had been revised to fit within your earlier guidelines. Because it had been deleted several times in the past (this is the first page I have ever made!) I am not sure if anyone looked twice at the revisions before tagging it for speedy deletion. Please reconsider. --Sils660

[edit] Response

In the sense that, while it was longer, it was not appreciably different in content from the original text, it still falls under recreated material. CSD G4 exists to allow the rapid deletion of any article about a subject repeatedly recreated after it has been decided upon that the article should be deleted. In such a case, the subject has already been concluded to not be an encyclopedic subject and thus not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Please do not persist in reposting the material; it is not notable, and it will only be deleted again. steve.museum meets none of the criteria of notability for websites. (Also, by the article failing to assert how it met one or more of those requirements, it has always fallen under the speedy deletion criterion A7, no assertion of notability.)

Additionally, please sign your posts with ~~~~. —Cuiviénen 06:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

actually that something failed notability once, is usually not a sign of not notability. articles should not prattle on about their notability. steve.museum is notable, that a group of editors did not know that, or that the first version of the article did not convey that is moot. we need to get the full article up for deletion review and get some of the editors from arts informatics and social informatics to comment. --Buridan 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

no, once it has been rebuked from review deletion, you should wait a good while before doing anything, like 6 months or so... well that's how long i'd wait.--Buridan 14:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)