User talk:Joethsmow/National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts
Contested deletion
[edit]This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (The organization known as Nareit is referenced through a multitude of different existing wiki articles. See REIT, EPRA, FTSE_Group I would like to know why this article was flagged for speedy deletion without any actual constructive feedback in order to help better construct the page.) --Joethsmow (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Contested deletion
[edit]This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (How is this a duplicate article? The organization for NAREIT is not the definition of a REIT, it is simply referenced in numerous instances within the article for REIT I am open to constructive criticism to the article but flagging this for deletion without any backing isn't acceptable.) --Joethsmow (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Contested deletion
[edit]This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... User:Ryulong is blatantly not communicating nor allowing me the opportunity to constructively edit or fix my article prior to flagging for deletion. This behavior blatantly goes again Wikipedia:FLAG-PROTOCOL as found here. I have had zero opportunities warnings or even the chance to rectify the qualms the user has in relation the article. I do not feel this is a fair assessment especially since now the editor in question is falsely accusing me for using two accounts. I would appreciate constructive criticism as I have in the tea house in regards to better addressing how to reaffirm my article's note-worthy content.Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions) --Joethsmow (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
PROD'ing the page
[edit]This will give the editor time to find sources to support his argument that the subject is notable. Once he thinks he has sufficiently proved notability he may remove the PROD. But if by a week the article is abandoned or cannot be improved it will be deleted. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 00:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Incorrect use of WP:PROD: "PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted. The first objection kills the PROD." We already know there is opposition. If you want to propose this at AfD, go ahead. Just don't try to get an easy deletion. Follow the process. Ground Zero | t 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)