User talk:Leschenne

Speedy deletion of South African Theological Seminary
A tag has been placed on South African Theological Seminary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kevin (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I work for the South African Theological Seminary. Our information (prospectus 2008) was given to Baker's Guide to be added to his site - if he has copyrighted our information how can we still freely use our Prospectus and add the correct info to Wikipedia?


 * Oops - the tag should have gone on the article - which has been deleted. Regardless of the copyright status of your prospectus, any article must show notability using secondary sources, and needs to be written in an encyclopedic manner. Had I not tagged this as a copyright violation, I would have tagged it anyway as either an article about an organisation that does not assert notability, or as blatant advertising. The best way forward is to put some info here on any secondary sources (newpaper articles, books etc) and we can go from there. Cheers Kevin (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks - am working on the it!

The article has previously been deleted via Articles for deletion/South African Theological Seminary. Please do not attempt to create it again. If you believe the subject is worthy of an article, take it to deletion review.- gadfium 08:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)