User talk:FluxPR

Nation's Memorybank
Hi Erica ;)

Sorry - new to Wikipedia. Please can you tell me why my article was deleted? I think that it is of genuine interest to the public - particularly as it serves to put together an archive of family history for free.

Thanks

FluxPR 21:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)FluxPR


 * These articles were deleted as advertising. Wikipedia cannot accept such articles. In addition, all article subjects should be notable. For more on what constitutes "notable", see WP:WEB (guidelines for online content). I can hardly think that a website setup today (May 2007) is notable. Thank you, Fang Aili talk 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles were deleted as advertising. Wikipedia cannot accept such articles. In addition, all article subjects should be notable. For more on what constitutes "notable", see WP:WEB (guidelines for online content). I can hardly think that a website setup today (May 2007) is notable. Thank you, Fang Aili talk 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fang

Thanks for your comments. I understand what you are saying about being notable. The fact that the archiving initiative is being backed by the BBc and the Daily Telegraph (UK's leading broadsheet paper) and has been getting publicity on BBC RAdio 4, The History Channel and Woman's Hour R4 - shows that there is massive support behind the concept of the Nations' Memorybank and that it is a unique initiative.

Please could you reconsider? I'm happy to make changes where you deem necessary.

Thanks

FluxPR 21:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry mate, but we get the feeling that you are involved so you writing the article makes it spam. In any case, given that today is May 1 and the site "was launched in May 2007", you will have an hard job demonstrating its notability. Wait. If the site becomes notable, someone with no COI will write it up for you. -- RHaworth 21:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Roger

I don't think I do have a COI as I'm not directly involved in the site. I do know Nick Barratt - the co-founder but am not in any commercial affiliation either with him or the NMB initiative. Can I repost in a few days time, once we have some more press interest in the website?

As I mentioned, the archive is ongoing, and is being backed by big players like BBC and The Telegraph. Also, Nick Barratt is a fairly big name in UK History circles. The site actually went up about two months ago, but it is officially launched today. I can make it more neutral if you like? Anything I can do, please tell me - I'd really like to see this one up on Wikipedia as soon as, if possible. I understand your point but feel that this is not spam or advertising. I do not have a COI here.

Thanks again ;)

FluxPR 21:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe your claim of no direct involvement - otherwise you might manage to get the apostrophe in the right place! One problem is that your user name suggests you are professional spammer - are you the FluxPR of Surbiton with a curiously empty website? Re the memorybank, I suggest that you should wait a few weeks rather than days. Wikipedia policy is very firm that we report notable things, we are not here to create notability. The tone of the article was not the problem - that could easily be fixed. Anthony Appleyard (see below) has not specifically commented - take a rain check from him as well. -- RHaworth 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The best that I could do within the rules would be to undelete these two pages and then AfD them, to get other opinions on whether to keep them; but there is the risk that the verdict would be "not notable, delete". Anthony Appleyard 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sticks Research Agency
See User_talk:Anthony Appleyard, and the discussion above. Anthony Appleyard 22:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)