User talk:Prauls901

Speedy deletion nomination of Sf.citi


A tag has been placed on Sf.citi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Bisswajit  07:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am challenging this tag, the sf.citi page should stay. Prauls901 (talk)
 * I left you a note on my talk page and please, sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks,  Bisswajit   07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Sf.citi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sf.citi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Sf.citi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tawker (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Patrick Deneen (author) discussion
Changes I have made to Patrick Deneen (author) have been subject to edit warring by user 45.52.233.3. The user has already had a 24-hour ban for breaking the 3RR rule. I would prefer that 45.52.233.3 discuss the issue before edit warring again. That discussion can happen here or on Talk:Patrick Deneen (author) Prauls901 (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple sentences and sources that say the same thing?
Please explain this edit. Why do we literally need two sentences and sources that say the same thing? ElKevbo (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * User:ElKevbo I think it should stand because it is new information; namely, that he actually confirmed the resignation. That is different than a report from a third source. Also having a trustworthy source provide a second confirmation is also useful for the information to be credible. Also, this section has now been reworded slightly and flows better. Prauls901 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say just include both citations after "Falwell resigned later that evening." without the additional sentence ("He also confirmed his resignation to the Wall Street Journal.") in the article text. The reader needs to know that he resigned; what publication he specifically told is superfluous for the Liberty University article. Remember, the article is about the university, not Falwell and not his resignation, so those kinds of details aren't appropriate. Seeing several citations after the fact is sufficient to confirm that the statement is true. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to this section. I removed the reference to the WSJ but kept the citation. However, the timeline of events was confused, and I think explaining those events is worth having in the article. Which is what the section now does. See this version. Prauls901 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)