User talk:Mathforms05

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Phillip Browning, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Phillip Browning. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above, I've proposed Planor Energy for deletion using the same procedure as explained above. I also suggest reading "Wikipedia is not the place for original research" Equendil Talk 01:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Browning

Regarding the message on my talk page, here's the thing: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a primary source or even a secondary source. Encyclopedia articles are on subjects already well known--the standard is notability. I don't quite understand, are you Philip Brown, is he someone you know? He may be important, but for an encyclopedia he must be recognized as important by primary sources out in the world.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]