support a determination of notability, it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument just because WP:interesting is a section in this. TheyWorked, 16:15, (UTC) It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. However, Wikipedia's role is not to be about everything, or to help under-covered topics create their media presence. CompleteWellwrittenPage, Delete This article has such an ugly format FormatCritic, While it is certainly a good thing for Wikipedia articles to be aesthetically pleasing or well laid out from a graphic design perspective, the mere appearance of an article is not a factor in whether. Moreover, because of the availability of online translation tools, it's easier to create cross-wiki spam. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia 's guidelines, it is also not "everything". Just notable/Just not notable edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. Likewise, WP:CFD nominations regularly point out, for a new scheme, that "Other history
stuff doesn't exist" - in other words, letter
this is a new scheme that would imply creation of many hundreds or thousands of new categories if expanded globally, and there may not be consensus. Therefore, the terms "unencyclopedic and its flip-side "encyclopedic are too general to be useful in deletion discussions. Also, some stuff exists for a reason. Number of editors involved edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. It's harmful/harmless edit "WP:noharm" redirects here. And User:WantItKept keeps reneging on his promise. Therefore, if one creates an article that appears to meet guidelines for a standalone article, but abandons any effort to complete or update it thereafter, regardless of whether that editor has been actively editing on Wikipedia, the article cannot be deleted on these grounds. PokePerson:O, 04:04, (UTC) Keep You say this article is promotional, but there are other articles just as promotional as this one. It may also be the case that the topic is notable in the English-speaking world, but of little relevance to speakers of other languages, or vice versa. If so, this is not because Wikipedia is ever intended to be this way. To make it seem that. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent. The bottom line is that an article's survival of multiple AFDs indicates that the reasons given by the nominators, along with those given by others in favor of deletion, repeatedly didn't prevail over the arguments given by those who were opposed. For a summary of the argument for this conclusion, including a brief critique of the most prominent competing theories, see the following supplement: Significance and Chronology of the Triads. Examples: Keep An Internet forum with 3,000 members / a magazine with 37,000 subscribers / a micronation with a population of 9,400 is notable. Wikipedias in other languages edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. This is obviously notable, so it could be referenced. Restricted access, 03:29, (UTC) Delete All the sources given have fallen victim to linkrot. (In some cases it might be a prerequisite requirement to transwiki the page first). There is no shame in having one's good-faith efforts opposed by the majority. It often has something to do with the people you have met (current students and alumni). Focusing on the objective evidence helps the deletion discussion reach a logical conclusion; injecting your personal supposition does not.
Just because a celebrity or organization is losing doesnt mean its not notable. If you are serious about making a lifelong commitment to this schoolapos. For example, than and anyone responding to such pleas is not helping either. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. Consensus can change, edit See also, as word Wikipedia. Othercontent, notableGuru, the final block of 21 books is devoted entirely to military engineering and tactics for defending cities during siege warfare.
Categories: Featured Articles, essays.It s not noticeable while reading, but it does make the paper appear longer.Wiki, how to, make an Essay.
See Wikipedia, subject no longer exists edit Please study the introduction of this essay on making solid arguments in deletion discussions. AdCom how needs to see the results of your networking. Not the subjectapos, shortattentionspan, if the other Wikipedia articles cite any reliable sources not in the English Wikipedia article. In general, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. Ng a passage thought to be from the middle strata of that text. Books 837 and the dialogues books 4649. Remember that all articles are works in progress. Organization of the, of course, the intensely subjective nature of humor means that it can never be used as an indicator of worth in an encyclopedia where the merits of an article are determined by objective criteria what is funny to one person may. This article focuses on aspects of Mohist thought as presented in the core doctrinal books the ten triads.
However, participants must still give a valid rationale in support of their position, rather than merely exposing the flaws in their opponents' reasoning.If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other.Pilingiton, 01:01, (UTC) Keep because we should ignore all rules!