Talk:The UKA Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 25. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Removing a template from an article.

Sorry, but I could not find an answer to this question in the 'help' section.

What I want to know is, after editing an article, and attempting to bring it up to standard according to the requirements in the displayed template, is it then permissible to remove the template from the article page?

Thanks for advice

AndreaUKA (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In principle, yes, if you can show that the concerns have been addressed. (However, don't use a misleading edit comment like "Further corrections to article." when you remove them.)
In this case, I have reinserted the templates for now. As for "too many link": Please read Wikipedia:EL#External_links_section. The main text should not contain external links, except for sources needed to support statements in the text. In an article about a company, one link to their homepage is usually considered enough, yet you have managed to cram in no less than 16 links to your enterprise, not counting the links to separate authors homepages (which are appropriate in an article about that author, but not here). Which brings us to the second template: The article is still written like an advertising, for example collecting enthusiastic blurbs to characterize a portfolio is a typical advertising technique. In contrast, Wikipedia's Neutral point of view principle would demand that also negative or lukewarm reviews be cited. And so on.
Have you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest?
Regards, High on a tree (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for that. I'm a bit confused though, as I have hardly actually changed anything (or added new links, apart from perhaps one or two) since the discussion on whether to keep the article almost 2 years ago (I think), when it was deemed acceptable. However, since it now seems it is not, I will endeavour to follow your guidelines and alter to your latest specifications. The comment 'Further corrections to article' was not meant to be misleading (apologies if it seemed so), it was what I'd done, so thought that was sufficient.

AndreaUKA (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've just added hang on, because I don't really understand how this can be marked 'for speedy deletion' when I have actually hardly added anything to the article since the original discussion when the article was deemed acceptable to keep (please see the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_UKA_Press). I have now attempted to follow your criteria (and deleted most external links), but can someone please explain how this article was fine for almost 2 years but then, with only the barest of additions,became 'unacceptable'? Thanks

AndreaUKA (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm afraid I can't add any 'negative or lukewarm reviews', since UKA Press haven't, thus far, had any :-)

AndreaUKA (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have now made many more changes, as per the request by 'High on a Tree' above. Can someone please let me know whether or not this article is now satisfactory. If not, perhaps you could tidy it up yourselves, according to your criteria.

AndreaUKA (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)