User talk:Dougofborg/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dougofborg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Talkback

Hello, Dougofborg. You have new messages at Dank55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Dougofborg. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Bowling Green Studies in Applied Philosophy, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to journals. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards So Why 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The same is true for your tagging of Nike Air Yeezy Sneaker. A7 does only cover real persons, organisations and web content - not products. Please review WP:A7 and maybe read WP:A7M to avoid such mistakes in the future. Regards So Why 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

London Buses route 138

I took a long time to do this page, but I can't exactly get it why you redirected everything back!

Feel free to expand on the article, but don't change a redirect to its own article without discussion firstDougofborg^(talk) 15:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence Based Mental Health

Hi -- I'm inclined to remove the tag you added, because as far as I can see it falls into the class of tags that have no function except to disfigure the article. If you could clarify for me what sort of source might substantiate the article better than a link to the journal's home page, I might change my attitude. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that I am trying to 'disfigure' the article. It is, however, lacking any sources. And as the tag indicates, sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. I used this tag specifically because articles such as this tend to only use its own website as a source. For details on what is considered a reliable source, please look here. I hope that this answers your question, please feel free to reply if it does not Dougofborg^(talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty much against templating articles in general, except in cases where there are real reasons to believe they contain false information -- it isn't just this one. Anyway I am quite familiar with WP:RS, I just don't understand what sort of sources would increase the verifiability of this particular article. In any case thanks for responding, Looie496 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)