User talk:Reb enfilade

Dear Reb enfilade,

Thank you for your concern about the article on Steuart. According to the most respected experts in the field (the ones I quote under secondary sources) he can be called a moderate mercantilist which is actually a much more balanced evaluation of his views than Adam Smith's. Your - supposedly Marxist - analysis will in my view clearly not qualify as NPOV. I think even Marx himself showed more sense of nuance on this issue in his Theories of Surplus Value. In plain English: if an economist proposes the kind of government intervention in international trade that Steuart advocates, he is - by common consensus of the leading writers in the field - qualified as a (moderate) mercantilist. There have been no differences of opinion or debates about this. The other important aspect of the issues you raise is that Steuart indeed provides a wealth of historical information to support his arguments, and many historians of economic thought assume that Smith appears to ignore Steuart in his Wealth of Nations precisely because Steuart's analysis provided a credible alternative to his own views. Most of the text was put up by another contributor and came from the Encyclopedia Brittanica. I would suggest we respect that source.Robertsch55 (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mountain gate

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mountain gate, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Deletion of new material without proper justification or attempts at editing it for suitability. I have undeleted it. It is now at Mountain Gate, Arizona. But please do not let it read like a travel brochure. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mountain Gate, Arizona

The article Mountain Gate, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG. As a neighborhood of a larger city, there would need to be independent coverage to establish separate notability. The only references are local stories one would expect about every new subdivision is a community.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MB 01:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]