Talk:VORTEX2

Speedy Deletion Contested
Please discuss here. I realize I may have jumped the gun on this speedy deletion tag, so, of course, as per Wikipedia policy, you can explain here why you wish to contest the speedy deletion, and we then a decision can be made to that effect. I apologize if I made it feel as though you are not welcome to add and edit on Wikipedia as much as I am welcome to do so. Pip (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, but what should I add? -- IRP (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to move the content from here into a new section in the original VORTEX page.


 * Basically make a section in there for this info with == VORTEX2 == in it.


 * Zenithas (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't do that because they are two separate projects. I would just expand this article or request expansion of it using the Official Web Site as a reference. -- IRP (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, what we need to see is a reason to keep this article around. First of all, I have suspicion that this article meets certain criterion of Wikipedia's Criteria for Speedy Deletion, specifically Criterion A1 and possibly Criterion G11.

If you believe that once the article is properly written it will comply with Wikipedia standards as an encyclopedic article, then of course it will not be deleted.

Here are some useful pointers to writing a great article for Wikipedia:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope I've helped you understand why i flagged your article, and increase your knowledge of how to improve it. of course if you have any other questions, feel free to message me again. Cheers Pip (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions of what I can expand it with? It was flagged because it didn't give the reader enough information. -- IRP (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now added more information to the article. -- IRP (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything else, please revise the article to meet the minimum requirements of Wikipedia, and it will be taken from there. Your reference is the Official Web Site. -- IRP (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the links I provided above for guidelines on what a good article is. Just provide as much encyclopedic material that you can, citing sources as you go, and making sure to adhere at least loosely to the general suggested format outlines in above links. Pip (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another good link I forgot to give you is: Your First Article Pip (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's looking better, but it's still pretty weak, and especially lacking in context. Why not consider merging this with VORTEX, where you could expand on the relationship between the two projects and the differences in VORTEX2 with respect to VORTEX? In the very least, you could add a good introductory paragraph like the VORTEX article has, to provide some context. However, the article on VORTEX already mentions VORTEX2, so in my opinion the best thing to do would be to merge the articles. Pip (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There...better now? -- IRP (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Thanks for the effort. Again, I'm truly sorry I tagged it for deletion so fast. My brain was on spam detection cruise control. I definitely think this article has potential to becoming good Wikipedian content. I must say, I'm now intrigued by this project... I'll have to bookmark the website. Pip (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it good enough for removal of the speedy deletion tag?...or does it need more work? -- IRP (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it can be taken from here now, the rest of the issues should be fixed. -- IRP (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. And you're welcome... I still feel pretty bad for jumping on you like that. Pip (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I accept your apology, and I don't blame you for trying to keep Wikipedia clean, but you just made a mistake by reacting too quickly. -- IRP (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm still learning. Thanks for being understanding. Peace. Pip (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion
Yet again this has been flagged for deletion. Although we decided not to delete it in the past, I definitely have to agree with the notion that the information here could be contained in the main article, VORTEX... Pip (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten a response from him. Should I remove the tag? Do you know anything I should do about it? I think this article is worth keeping. -- IRP ☎ 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Other than repeating, "But it's a different project!" you've never made any case for keeping two separate articles instead of a single, longer, sturdier article with solid references (and the official web site of the project is not, repreat not, a reliable source). -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Since I don't think the article should necessarily be deleted, especially since it's counterpart has been kept, I removed the PROD. (Also, PROD is not for potentially controversial deletes) Furthermore, I added merge tags to the articles, since I think it would be most productive to merge VORTEX2 with VORTEX, as Orange Mike  mentioned above. Pip (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See discussion here. -- IRP ☎ 20:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)