User talk:Spongebee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Spongebee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Dragomiloff 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luddite fallacy

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Luddite fallacy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Dragomiloff 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why this article is being deleted, or how to stop it, but I got it from a book and think it should be included —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spongebee (talk • contribs).

Which book? If there is a good reference meeting standards for reliable sources in WP:ATT that this is a real term the article might be worth expanding and keeping. Dragomiloff 22:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The book is the Elusive Quest for Growht, by william easterly, published by MIT press in 2001. I cited this at the bottom of the page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spongebee (talk • contribs).

Okay - thanks - actually if you don't agree with deletion you can edit the article yourself to remove the PROD (proposed deletion) template. But there is also the likelihood that someone will nominate it for deletion or merger as we already have an article on Luddite which includes criticism of them. In general, articles which are solely negative toward a topic, especially if the name of the article implies a disapproval of the topic (such as the use of "fallacy" in the name) don't meet Wikipedia's WP:Neutral Point of View policy and are considered "POV forks" if there is already a neutral article about the subject, although there are exceptions. For example if Luddite fallacy is a widely used term that can be sourced then a case could be made for a separate article, although I would be more inclined to just include that material in the Luddite article. Anyway if you disagree with deletion under WP:PROD it's your right to remove the PROD template. Dragomiloff 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The article Luddite fallacy is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luddite fallacy. Your input in the discussion is welcomed. Dragomiloff 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)