Talk:CAADRIA

Hi, the Association for Couputer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia is a non-profit organisation registered in Hong Kong. It conducts conferences and promotes research in the area of Computer-Aided Architectural Design (CAAD). It is a part of a federaton of organisations invoved in this type of research all over the world. Some of our assiciated organisations, namely ASCAAD, eCAADe and ACADIA already maintain pages on Wikipedia, and we have just followed their example to make our page here.

Could you be a little more specific about the issues as to why this page is marked for speedy deletion? If there are errors in presentation or editorial issues, I will be glad to correct them.Vetinarih (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've declined the speedy because I can see you want to make a go of this. Unfortunately it's written like an advertisement, so it meets the deletion criteria for advertising. I do, however, think that you genuinely want to try with this, so here are a few tips:

Read WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV, and remove any point of view;
Add reliable sources and verifiable sources;

Hopefully that should help. Have a go at re-writing it and ask me if you have any problems. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter Symonds, thanks for the tip, we will need a little time to read through your policies, and rewrite the text to align to wikipedia standards, although. Hopefully the article will not be deleted while we correct the text offline and upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.168.231 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned note on my user page

The "references" in the article are external links to the organizations named, as far as I could see, therefore no verifiability for the "facts" of the article. See WP:V. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the External Links section was renamed "references" by another wikipedia editor, as you will see from the history page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.154.150 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article because it is notable, therefore it will be proven to be fact by third party sources, i.e. reputable newspapers, academic research, this article only has links back to CAADRIA, these are the references required, whoever changed external links to references was mistaken. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you may look at external links # 2, Cumulative Index in CAAD, and also Google Scholar search and other academic research indexes, which will testify to the references you seem to require. Please let me know as to the type of collateral information we must provide here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.225.137 (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case add the references that sustantiate the article and everybody will be happy. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the references are already there if you notice, and would you please, as a reputable Wikipedia Editor, check your spelling, at the least, before posting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.160.178 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no third party references that I can see, just loads of links to the assn. and associated assns more commonly referred to as spamlinks, please read WP:V. I make a typo - you never sign your posts on talk pages. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]