User talk:Thron7

AfD nomination of Single page application
I have nominated Single page application, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Single page application. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Collectonian (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello - I'm the admin who closed the above AFD discussion and deleted the article. If you like, I can userfy the content so you can work on the article at your own pace. After it's properly referenced and developed, it can then be moved back into the mainspace. Another alternative is to develop a new version of the article in your userspace that isn't based on the old one. I agree that single-page applications are notable, but the content of the article was not sufficient to keep in the encyclopedia, especially since it was unreferenced. If you would like me to userfy the article, just let me know, and feel free to ask any questions. Thanks - Krakatoa  Katie  05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - I hope you will be reading this. There are a couple of things from my side:
 * First, I appreciate you regard the article subject as notable. I guess this means that in principle it merrits an article in mainspace. My understanding of the discussion so far was that this was contested. This was also a reason why I withheld any further edits to the article, because I wouldn't want to invest in something that might not be admitted in principle.
 * Second, I'm surprised about the way the deletion "discussion" has taken place. I was expecting some kind of reply to my posting that would relate somehow to the things I wrote. Rather, and without any further ado, both the article and the deletion discussion have been deleted/closed. This is a weird way of "discussing".
 * I appreciate your suggestion of "userfying" the page, but I must also admit that I'm surprised about the course this is taking. I have been involved in some community/open-source efforts. The way things were handled there was: If somebody spots something missing he creates a 'stub', something at least pointing into the right direction. Then, the whole community would pick it up and work on it until it is in good shape. Your suggestion defeats the whole process, making a community effort impossible. Is everybody at Wikipedia so anxious about the quality of initially published material? I would have expected the article being tagged as "insufficient", "missing sources", "needing improvement" and what else you usually do and pops up on other articles, but not being deleted. Not so here. Why?
 * Having said that, yes, I would appreciate if you could "userfy" the article. But since nobody else will see it, how will it be re-evaluated to see whether it is sufficient to be put back into mainspace? Thron7 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thron7/Single page application
I've moved the old single page application page into your userspace at User:Thron7/Single page application. You can now work on the article until it's ready and can stand on its own. Any article needs some references, like books or URLs, and there should be internal links where appropriate. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be at least a stub that can stand on its own. WP:BETTER may be a good place to start.

While it's in your userspace, do _not_ add any categories (such as Category:Web applications or templates (such as web-stub, cleanup or wikify) to the article, because categories and templates are only used for articles.

The readiness to be moved back into the mainspace is up to you. If you want feedback, you can look at the page's history (the history of the page since you created on 2 January followed the move) and ask each editor to come critique it, or you could go with your gut feeling.

When it's ready, let me know and I'll move it back to the mainspace, or you can do it yourself if you're comfortable with it. Don't just copy and paste it – the page's history has to be kept, and we'll lose that if the page is not moved. Good luck, and let me know if you need help. – Krakatoa  Katie  00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page for Single page application
Were you able to rescue the talk page for the Single page application article? The topic interests me and I am puzzled it is gone. As for neologism-claims Google quickly locates articles from 2005. --21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response. No, I weren't. I'm sorry the talk page has just vanished, too. IMHO, it could have remained attached to the main article. The whole deletion process was irritating, esp. compared to other articles in mainspace, but there you go. The deletion discussion is still available and provides some references to the original talk page. The relevance of the article itself was not contested, but its form not accepted. I've started to work on an improved version but didn't make much progress so far. Thron7 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about these problems; quite why deletions are preferred to editing remains unclear to me. I no longer contribute here but instead take things that interest me elsewhere. Generally it seems talk pages vanish without a trace, even for non-deleted articles; not sure why that is so. Thanks for your efforts. --21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.190.96 (talk)