On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:14 AM, Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My activity at en.wiki only deals with crosswiki abuse and lta
> "management". So don't be afraid of me but frainkly I don't find your
> startup incubator to be notable. In other words I don't find it to be
> something I expect to find on an encyclopedia.
He he. No, the startup incubator is in the same building, but one
floor higher. :-)
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Okay, I did a pretty thorough scrub and reworking of the article. I added
> the logo as well as moved it to the main space. As it stood the article
> needed help but of course that's typical of new articles.
Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so
Hm, but while I agree that the article has not been of high quality
from the start, I am really not sure if the best approach was for it
to be deleted. What would be a better process in such cases? Why
articles are not asked to be deleted with more time?
My article was speedy deleted based on:
What I do not understand is why there is a speedy deletion if article
does not explain why the subject of the article is not significant,
instead of deletion if article's subject is not significant? Because
the first thing could be improved, it is a content issue?
Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just
leave it be and everything is great?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com