Paul2520 This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject. Firstly, it was tagged within a few seconds of its initiation. The guidelines read, "Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created. ... If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not appropriate." References were present in the first submission. The article itself and its references speak to its notability. Double work on this page should have been unnecessary. --ElizaKobert (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Moreover, it would seem from looking at the suggested redirects within the 2006 discussion that the 2006 topic under this article name was completely different. ElizaKobert (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- ElizaKobert, you're right, that was too quick of me. That's my bad. I've removed the template in light of your ongoing edits. - Paul2520 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Paul2520 Thank you. I imagine it would also make sense if the tag applied by the bot at the top of this page were also removed. But I feel more comfortable deferring to you or other people on this.ElizaKobert (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
- ElizaKobert, I'm not sure of the protocol for removing this tag in this situation. I do have two suggestions, and feel free to do with them as you will. First is to use reference templates, e.g. Template:Cite book. It looks better and provides a unified style for the references. Second is more for other articles you may choose to write: you can use drafts and/or a sandbox to edit articles before they are published. This can be a great way to gradually add information and prepare your article for the world to see.
- Happy editing! - Paul2520 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
