User talk:Jamietan23

Speedy deletion nomination of OfficerDown.US
Hello Jamietan23,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged OfficerDown.US for deletion, because it doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

-- Pingumeister(talk) 16:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about OfficerDown.US
Hello, Jamietan23,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether OfficerDown.US should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/OfficerDown.US.

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

-- Pingumeister(talk) 09:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

About OfficerDown.US
I recommend using the In use template at the top of the article until you are happy with it. Additionally please read Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources (WP:SOURCE) and notability (WP:N). Once you feel you have made significant improvements to the article, remove the 'in use' template. -- Pingumeister(talk) 11:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm afraid the deletion discussion remains, as I find it unlikely that this organisation meets notability guidelines on Wikipedia (see WP:ORG). -- Pingumeister(talk) 12:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)