User talk:Artfog

got it.

Vipatients.com

A tag has been placed on Vipatients.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Vipatients.com. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Subwayguy 21:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stacy Blackman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stacy Blackman, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —rybec 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stacy Blackman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stacy Blackman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Blackman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Keep vote

You only get one vote, recommend deleting the second vote otherwise it will be seen as attempted stacking. It happens no problem best to remove "Keep" and change to "Comment". -- GreenC 22:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom:Removed. Thanks. Artfog (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Blackman

Art, though I voted to delete in the discussion, I am sorry that your work and effort were deleted, I don't take that lightly. Ultimately the consensus of the deletion discussion was to delete. I'd also mention that the nominator for deletion, User:DGG, is generally seen as one of the project's inclusionist administrators, so if he nominates something for deletion, it probably really does merit deletion under our policies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

advice: It is generally a good idea not to mention really minor things, because it detracts from the better ones. This is especially true if the minor material is presented without discriminating--in this case, most of the profiles or interviews were of her along with other people. I would have worded it as she was profiled in X Y and Z with a ref for each, and joint profiles elsewhere (giving the refs), but not saying the magazine names except in the references. Too many linked names of this sort suggests a striving after appearing prominent--its a standard advertising technique, but it gives a bad impression here. Whether the Fortune articles count is a general question: when a magazine or newspaper selects someone for a human interest story, but selects as a representative example, not the best example, (and Fortune explicitly said it was doing that) does this show notability ? This is a matter of judgment, and also of increasing standards: 7 years ago when I started here, we would have counted them, and accepted the article. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cover of Fortune Magazine issue 29 May 2000.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of Fortune Magazine issue 29 May 2000.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]