User talk:Appen

Speedy deletion of Gwinnett Herald
A tag has been placed on Gwinnett Herald, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

your deletion of my newspaper Gwinnett Herald
Every newspaper that I typed into Wiki was there. But you delete mine. I guess I don't get it why it is ok for other newspapers to be listed and not mine. It is a mystery to me and I don't see any fairness in it at all. Not only did I keep the information about Gwinnett Herald to a minimum but I did not even include a way to contact the paper so that you would not think I was using Wiki to promote the newspaper. Can you help me here? Thanks, Ray Appen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appen (talk • contribs) 23:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, thanks for your message. In future, please sign your messages by adding ~ at the end.
 * Gwinnett Herald was deleted from Wikipedia as it was an article about a company/organization which does not indicate why it is important or significant. This means that it qualified for speedy deletion per criterion A7. I have not accused you of using Wikipedia to promote the newspaper but you have not demonstrated (with citations from reliable sources) the notability of the newspaper.
 * I also would like to point out to you the guidelines on conflict of interest (writing about subjects with which you are connected) and ownership of articles. You should also read about spamming in relation to the links you have added to several articles.
 * You are also welcome, if you find articles which you think should not be included, to mark them for deletion under the deletion procedure.
 * I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I can now see why your list of newspapers is so lacking. Your digital attitude is not surprising. But I will tell you something that you will not believe but I will tell you anyway. Your bias against newspapers in favor of digital is massively shortsighted. Digital, even WP, will not protect our basic rights that newspapers have almost solely defended against all the greed, avarice, and fundamental predatory nature of our society.  You do future generations - your grand children - a disservice with your arrogance. Good luck with your editing and I'll keep publishing my newspapers to help mitigate the damage you do. Appen  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appen (talk • contribs) 18:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll change your mind, but just in case, I'll remind you that Wikipedia is one of the ten most-visited sites, and we have 1,642 featured articles considered the best that Wikipedia has. I disagree with your accusation of arrogance and bias, but I will join with you in saying that newspapers are an excellent source and have an important function in society. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)