Topsfield99
Hi everybody! This is where you talk to me!
Hi Topsfield. Regarding LÖVE, this article was previously deleted due to lack of independent verifiability; and by extention a lack of notability. Do you think you will be able to address these issues? Marasmusine (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- In fact I do, as I have already inserted some references to the LOVE website itself. However, since the LOVE website is somewhat indescript, I have limited information to insert into the article. I plan on finding more information and citations later on. --Topsfield99 (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if it wasn't clear, but our articles need to be built from sources independent of the subject. Coverage in magazines, books, journals, etc. would be ideal. Anything like this? Marasmusine (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hm...LOVE isn't that popular, and I haven't found much about it anywhere. My bad, I misunderstood the policy on citations, sorry. --Topsfield99 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I either take down the article, or move it to your userspace, in lieu of independent sources? Marasmusine (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I ask that you please move it to my user space so that I can try to increase the content more so over time. Eventually when I gather enough references and content, I'll attempt to re-add it. How many references would make the article follow the rules? --Topsfield99 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- You'll find it here: User:Topsfield99/LÖVE. All the information you need about verification is at WP:V, but I can answer any specific queries you have later. Marasmusine (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I ask that you please move it to my user space so that I can try to increase the content more so over time. Eventually when I gather enough references and content, I'll attempt to re-add it. How many references would make the article follow the rules? --Topsfield99 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MonoGame is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonoGame until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SpinningSpark 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PhysicsFS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsFS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WubTheCaptain (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)