User talk:Frankthetank

Your thoughts on my draft for the Familial DNA section

Hello- I noticed your edits on the familial DNA section of DNA Profiling and I have been working on expanding on them and the section. I have a draft posted here User:Spu2011 that I'm hoping to paste in this week or next. Please let me know what you think, and if you'd have any issues with me pasting this in over what is there already. I was hoping to keep it consistent with what was currently there but expand on the history, technology, differences between familial and partial matching,etc. Thanks Spu2011 (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Integrity Asset Management

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Integrity Asset Management, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Integrity Asset Management is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Integrity Asset Management, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Integrity Asset Management

Hello Frank, and welcome to Wikipedia. About the article you created, it was only sourced from the company's own website. One of the requirements for notability (you may want to see Wikipedia's notability guidelines) is that it has multiple, reliable, external sources. Second, though the company may be notable, the article did not assert its notability. If you don't state why the company is notable, it doesn't seem notable. Finally, if you wish to appeal the deletion, you may want to see the deletion review process. Best of luck to you. Regards, Keilana 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I of course agree that that one article was reliable and a good external source. However, the general guideline is to have multiple reliable sources, and the article did not assert the company's notability, i.e. why it should be written about on Wikipedia. I'm sorry for not responding to your question; this specific article was deleted because it was brought to my attention for deletion. If there are others that should be deleted, please point them out by tagging them with a speedy deletion tag. Also, if you wish to have the deletion overturned, I strongly suggest you request review at deletion review. I'm sorry for the delay in answer, and happy editing to you. Best regards, Keilana 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Roland Burris Burial Site" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Roland Burris Burial Site has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 20 § Roland Burris Burial Site until a consensus is reached. BDD (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]