User talk:Leesw

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no idea why this would be up for speedy deletion. It, like other pages on here about major dating websites seems to have its place. I've found pages about Plenty of Fish, Match.com, Eharmony, etc. I am working to add references from other sources. Please let me know the status of this and if there is a problem. What needs to be done for that big Speedy Deletion box to be removed? Thanks. -Lee

After taking another look, I think I was too hasty. I've restored the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee. I saw your note on NawlinWiki's page. I posted to Talk:Real Christian Singles with a note about what's needed on the article itself to help us meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. It would be great if you could take a look there and if possible provide some of the references needed for the article. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What types of references do I need? I've looked at other pages about similar websites (like the Plenty of Fish one) and I can't seem to see what the page is missing. I'd very much appreciate your suggestions. Thanks. User:Leesw

Independent third-party sources - for instances academic research, articles that aren't puff pieces in respected newspapers, and respected books are generally good. The appropriateness of any reference will depend on the situation. For example you said on NawlinWiki's page that RCS is "one of the top five Christian dating website in existence", that sort of claim would probably be best from a publication or website that has a reputation for providing accurately ranked figures in that area.

I took a very cursory skim through the Plenty of Fish article you mention in order to try and give you pointers you'll can relate to. I note that it uses references from The Wall Street Journal, The National Post, Channel 9, and The New York Times. Assuming these are not all simply passing mentions (I haven't gone so far as to check them against the claims in the article or even to read them) - they are the sort of thing that can establish notability from Wikipedia's perspective. Hope that gives you some idea of what's required.

I also suggest you take a look at our

guidelines on editing with a conflict of interest (we have found at Wikipedia that editors who try to write articles about themselves or organizations/fields they are closely connected with have more difficulty than editors in general - the guidelines try to help guide you in finding the balance between adding your expertise and maintaining Wikipedia's core values and intent). Hope that's helpful. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask. -- SiobhanHansa 19:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, thanks. I have references on there from About.com and KillerStartUps.com. I'm trying to find the link where it mentions the feature on E-True Hollywood story. Am I listing it right on the Real Christian Singles page? User:Leesw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.255.215 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee - you're putting them in the right place. The Killerstartups review isn't really very useful (they're not a particularly well known site and it's a very cursory write up) and an about.com review is fairly low on the ladder from a notability perspective so definitely find that E-True Hollywood one and any others. Substantial national press coverage is definitely one of the most common ways to establish notability so if there are more please find them. In general reviews tend not to be enough (they're generally pretty cursory and very few review sites of web based services have a reputation for impartial and thorough analysis. Feature articles that look at the business rather than the service might be much better if there are any. -- SiobhanHansa 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Joe Beam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your submission in

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers^[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also,

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request

Hello Leesw. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Leafwood Publishers.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Hello Leesw. It has been over six months since you last edited your

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leafwood Publishers}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]