User talk:Flat Out/Archives/2015/January

I hope not
I truly hope that you are not retiring. I am happy to discuss any issues you are dealing with. Take care. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cullen328 Happy New year old friend. I'm back after a looong break.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Take care. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Baton Rouge African American Museum
Hey can you check over the article Baton Rouge African American Museum? Honestre (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Honestre, thats the best I can do wioth what's there. You need more secondary and independent sources (see also WP:42 ) and you need to see if the article meets the Wikipedia standard for notability. Let me know if I can be of further help.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. I am currently looking for news articles to support it. The notability aspect is a little confusing. Isn't its being a museum enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blairify (talk • contribs) 04:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look at what it says at WP:NGO .  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

100 Call Police
You prod the article by saying that it lacks notability, on what basis you are saying that it lacks notability. 1.2 billion of India use this no. for emergency purposes that really confirms notability for the subject. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me ) 04:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it had no sources to support notability is a pretty good place to start.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes this is about a product
Yes, this about a product, a person, an entity. So is the rest of the articles. Go read it for convergys, genpact, IBM. Do you not think they are Products or about person or about entity. Jesus, I knew this would be the case. Shhaa, I dont care no more. Its biased. (PERIOD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tusharbhattacharya sites (talk • contribs) 05:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tusharbhattacharya sites you misunderstand entirely. Articles can be written about companies that meet the Wikipedia standard for notability, which is WP:CORP. Your article only uses the company website as a source. Until many indepdendent sources havde written about the company/product, it isn't up to Wikipedia standard. See also WP:42. Many thanks  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Advanced Filmology
Hello sir. You recently deleted my article about Advanced Filmology. The reason for deletion was because it was considered a hoax. However, I find this to be a false claim. Advanced Filmology is a real ideology worshipped by people. I'd like to request it be put back up, or if I can retrieve my article. Also, what makes a religion worthy to be on Wikipedia? It is real, and is not a hoax. Please message me back. Thanks, Baker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baker95030 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Baker95030. I didn't delete the article but I did nominate it for deletion. The subject, Advanced Filmology, may be real but it doesn't meet the Wikipedia stannard for notability.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)