User talk:Djavidan

Webology

Webology
Please don't add WP:REDLINKs to See also sections. Given the past history of the Webology article, this article needs to be written and established before we start linking to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

=
======= Hello. During 8 years, you and your friends are deleting the Webology entry without any reason. Why you have not removed a publicity record Web Science and Web Science Trust, because the company is American?!

Because the record is based on the Wikipedia condition?! It is not true at all.


 * Hi Diana,
 * I'm afraid I can't comment much on Webology itself. I haven't seen the article as it was deleted a long time ago. My point is that, especially for a contentious article like this, it shouldn't be added to See also sections in other articles until the Webology article is itself written and stable. The cases for when it's a good idea to have a WP:REDLINK in a See also section are quite narrow.


 * Webology has repeatedly been deleted.
 * 20:33, 21 August 2010 CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: CSD G12: Copyright infringement)
 * 20:28, 21 August 2010 CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.ajiboye.com/FORUM-1027-design011-Webology)
 * 00:08, 23 November 2009 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: notability. using TW)
 * 19:55, 24 November 2006 Jaranda (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (recreated content)
 * 03:47, 20 September 2006 Centrx (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (Old deleted-protected page)
 * 00:19, 24 April 2006 Deltabeignet (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (CSD G4 (recreation of deleted content))
 * 23:08, 23 April 2006 Angr (talk | contribs) deleted page Webology (G4 (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Webology))
 * This is a problem because Wikipedia never admits that it has been wrong. WP:CSD means "We deleted this article once, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, but now we can delete it again on sight without even thinking about it". This avoids WP admitting an error, but it also means that it's hard for some good articles to survive, just because they were deleted once in the past.
 * I would suggest that you write the article at user:Djavidan/Webology and then make sure that it meets all relevant policies: particularly WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:COPYVIO. After a few other editors have taken a look at it (I'd be happy to do so myself), then it could be moved to mainspace. Only once it's established as a robust article, free of G4 and G12 concerns, should it be re-added as links from other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Information consulting


The article Information consulting has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The topic is ill-defined, and sources reveal that the term is used in a variety of contexts. I'm not sure if a redirect should remain, or where it should point to if it does. Perhaps Information professional? The term 'information consultant' seems to be used sometimes to mean what is now defined as an Information broker as well."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)