User talk:Orthorhombic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] April 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. An article you recently created, The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Committee of General Literature and Education, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't, but a society legally speaking isn't that far from any other club. You just didn't show it wasn't either. you should provide at least one source that shows how many books this society has published. And another that shows how it was relevant (anyone can publish books, but if you all store them in a bassment without selling them, it's still not very useful). It's upto the authors to show why a subject is notable for an encyclopedia, not up to the ones asking for their deletion due to lack of sources. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you allowed time around here to add to an article a little by little. I appreciate what a good Wikipedia article looks like, but instead of offering assistance to put it right you criticise then remove the article. What's that about? Orthorhombic 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but not without some proof that the subject of the article actually exists. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Society+for+Promoting+Christian+Knowledge+Committee+of+General+Literature+and+Education%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 did not return any results at all, and as such it seems doubtful that enough verifiable information can be added to create a useful article at this time. Wikipedia is not the internet, wikipedia is an encylopedia. We need sources that verify the information in our articles, especially for the less known and smaller things, because they are very hard to verify trough "common sense". P.S. the thing about "more time" is a case of a vandal that i reported on his 5th offence of content deletion within 1 minute after another person gave him his final warning. I had not checked the time of this final warning. things like that happen once in a while. It has little to do with "giving people time to develop an article". --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)