GrebeBluetoad

Speedy deletion of Lee Academy

A tag has been placed on Lee Academy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. WashingManwithwings (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"a school"? what did that mean? kindergarten? university? driving academy? daycare? charm school? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

an academy in maine GrebeBluetoad (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Scott Fox

A tag has been placed on Scott Fox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. WashingManwithwings (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott Fox

In this article you need to add some information including links to show that this person is real. The other one was deleted because it didnt have enough information in and was falling under the category for speedy deletion. For more information please dont hesitate to contact me on my talkpage. WashingManwithwings (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think since wikipedia is so large someone could have googled Scott Fox and linked it. GrebeBluetoad (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added it too a few categories but please dont remove the Speedy deletion tag. It will be up to an admin to decide if they delete it. WashingManwithwings (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, since "pro football player" is a claim of notability, and the link verifies it. Edison (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not edit a lot of football articles, but one I improved was fun. See Hugh White (athlete). We tend to give inherent notability to pro athletes but are more restrictive for amateur such as college athletes. I think it should always boil down to WP:N which calls for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Edison (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Added a few tags to the article. WashingManwithwings (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)