User talk:Zoe Lisanti

Speedy deletion nomination of Anne Jirsch
Hello Zoe Lisanti,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Anne Jirsch for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

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. Mwenzangu (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The Past and Future Life Society


A tag has been placed on The Past and Future Life Society 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 credibly 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Future Life Progression


A tag has been placed on Future Life Progression 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 credibly 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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 22:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Future Life Progression for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Future Life Progression 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/Future Life Progression 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. czar 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Anne Jirsch
The article was deleted because it wasn't properly compliant with our inclusion and sourcing rules: the "sources", for example, were all primary sources that cannot support notability, and not reliable source coverage in media. What you do have the option of doing now is to create and submit a new version through our WP:AFC process, so that you can get more direct feedback and guidance about how to make it includable — but you can't just recreate a talk page to assert that the original version followed our standards properly, because we've already looked at it and determined that it didn't. You're welcome to submit a revised version for consideration through AFC if you're really committed to getting it in here, but to actually get back into articlespace it is going to have to be written and sourced better than it was the first time. Hope that helps a bit. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)