Like you where told, Having an article not assert notably, and having an article be non-notable are effectively the same thing for wikipedia.
You provided several examples specifically cities and plant/animal species, both of those have inherent notability. However companies do not have such a default status, thus must assert it. forcing the limited ~500 administrators to review and research each of the 5693 deletions performed yesterday (of which 1196 where in the main namespace) would place too much burden on them if the article fails to assert notability or isnt notable there is no effective difference. On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > 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. :-) > > http://hekovnik.com/ > > 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. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poligon_Creative_Centre > > Wow! This is amazing! Thank you so much! The article is alive and so > much better! > > 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: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 > > 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? > > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>