 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
I respectfully request that this page not be removed. Here's why:
1. The page was orginally posted in early September with no problems and hasn't been challenged until I tried to make a title change.
2. I have worked with several Administrators as how to classify the page - either under 'onlione urban planning' or 'online land planning'
3. The page contains original research on an emerging topic within both the land planning and urban planning fields.
4. Administrator RHaworth and I have agreed on its content, title and wiki placement over the past week and he has helped validate this page.
5. RHaworth and I agreed the original title, 'Online land planning' and content could remain. He help with a redirect from 'Online urban planning.'
6. The fact that this page lists to an external website (in the last paragraph) is relevant and fair within the overall article.
7. I have provided many internal links right from the article to other sites and tried diligently to wikify the page.
8. This page has good references and citations. I have also tried to link back to this page from other wiki sites.
9. I am a wiki regular contributor and my credientials have not been called into question before.
I wish the person that had placed this notice would have checked the page history (especially the Admin:talk) to see that I have been proactive, respectful and diligent about working within the rules of wikipedia and communicating with adminstrators, who have been helpful to get this posted correctly.
Last, the spam notice is uncalled for and I would appreciate it if you would remove it as soon as possible.
Thank you, Lispp
- Lispp, thank you for your note. I will try to outline some of the issues with the article, based on your notes above:
- The amount of time that elapses does not necessarily support whether or not a page should stay. There are almost three million pages on EnWiki, so it does take time for many to get noticed.
- If the article is "original research", that is another reason to remove it; Wikipedia does not permit original research. If it is an "emerging topic". it needs to demonstrate notability from independent third-party sources, not from a company involved in the business.
- The web site the page linked to (onlineplanning.com) is not suitable; it is a site that is involved in the business; RHaworth actually removed the inappropriate ad text about said company.
- Much of the text is not suitable as it duplicates existing content; the article is about "online land planning", and the sections about land ownership and Internet use should be removed in favour of links to existing articles.
- Many of the citations support facts about Internet use and land ownership, not about the notability of "online land planning".
- Finally, while no disrespect is intended with regards to your contributions, it is important to note that all 137 of them involve this article. The ones that are not direct edits to the article are either discussions about the article, or edits where you add internal links (to this article) and external links to "onlineplanning.com" to other articles. You may find that diversifying your contributions will help.
- In short, based on what you have presented, the topic does not appear to warrant an article at this time. It would be better served as a properly referenced section of an existing article such as land use planning. --Ckatzchatspy 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)