User talk:Wolfkeeper/Archive Dec 2007

Concorde
Thanks for your comment, I understand what you said but it does seem like rumour and speculation - just looking for somebody to provide a citation/reference in the public domain. I was tempted just to delete but thought it was better to give a chance for somebody to come up with the goods. MilborneOne 19:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rocket
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Rocket you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pursey 16:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This review has been placed 'On Hold. Notes have been left on the article's talk page. Pursey 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This review has been 'Failed. Notes have been left on the article's talk page... however...

 Pursey  Talk 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Aplus.Net
The article is nearly an obvious COI violation, and recreation as well, but it seems like the article is relatively free of NPOV violations, and actually notable. Please advise re. Talk:Aplus.Net. Thanks, Grace notes T § 02:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still do think that the subject is notable, but the evidence presented about the individual's conduct is somewhat damning. (I took a look at some sockpuppets' contributions&mdash;thank you for pointing that out.) "If it was notable, somebody not associated with the company would have created it" is a weak argument, but I've actually used it before. While not de facto policy, I suppose it applies enough in this case. I'll add the article to WP:RA with notablewarn, so someone other than the individual, you, or me could recreate the article if it's notable. Grace notes T § 02:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a list of all the companies in the world. It's a judgement call, but we did the judgement twice already, and given the all the history, it needs to go; and it really does violate the CSD rule.WolfKeeper 02:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Recent sources may prove it notable "enough", I think. But, fair enough, it does meet the CSD. Grace notes T § 02:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Team B
Thanks for your work on Team B, although I disagreed myself with adding that critical sentence in the introduction, I appreciate your work on the article. Travb (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)