User talk:Suzan.nguyen

Welcome!

Hello, Suzan.nguyen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like LinkedNow, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Warrior 4321 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LinkedNow

A tag has been placed on LinkedNow, 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 an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Warrior 4321 04:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Suzan.nguyen. You have new messages at Warrior4321's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warrior 4321 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

Hello. If you own "LinkedNow", you may not create the article for it. We have a conflicts of interest guideline that may be violated be doing this, even if it isn't promotional. $©@®©Ξ 06:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of LinkedNow.com

The article LinkedNow.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable website, leans too much on passing mentions

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Please note:

I did not propose it for deletion, but unusually you were not notified by the proposer, so I thought that I would let you know.
Although you may remove the {{dated prod}} tag (as detailed above), this could lead to a discussion at Articles for Deletion as per the above.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of LinkedNow.com

I have nominated LinkedNow.com, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LinkedNow.com. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your comments on the LinkedNow.com talk page

This will be my final comments on this subject here - any other comments (if any) will be on the AfD page.

Firstly, although the NBC websites are independent, the actual text on all of them is identical. If they had all had their own versions of the text, written by one of their own staff, I'd count them as more than one source (as long as it wasn't an obvious copy of a press release). As they are all identical, they are basically the same source - all of the NBC affiliates had access to the sames sources, and just because 9 of them thought one in particular was worthy of inclusion on their sites does not count as "significant coverage".

On a personal level, I object to being labelled as "deletionist". If you were to look at my contributions, you'll see there are lots of articles for which I have found sources of information - and by no means are they all UK- or US-centric. I have found information about Indian villages, Afghani archaeological digs, Ukrainian astronauts - and those are just 3 examples of non-UK and non-US subjects. I do not look to delete articles for the sake of it. Yes, I will seek the deletion of material which does not meet the criteria (as I interpret it - YMMV), but I also try to find sources of information which can save articles. I looked for independent sources (by which I do not mean several websites with identical articles), but I was unable to find them. As I said before, if you could find some more sources of information, then my mind can be changed - there have been at least 10 articles which I have thought should be deleted, but then further sources have been found, or where the arguments in favour of keeping the article has been convincing enough to persuade me to change my recommendation. I can't think of any case where I have thought the article should be kept and then changed my mind to delete - all of those cases have been where I have thought the article should be deleted, and changed my mind to keep - hardly the pattern of a deletionist. I'll admit that I am a bit of a stickler for only keeping articles which clearly meet the criteria in the policies and guidelines, but that is not (to my way of thinking) the same as a deletionist. Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject.

Please understand, this is not a personal issue for me - if further reliable sources of information can be found for LinkedNow.com, I'd be quite happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion.

Furthermore, I would like to ask you to not be discouraged by this.

Firstly, it may be that the consensus is that the article be kept. If this is the case, I'll have no problem with that - the good thing about Wikipedia is that we have the opportunity to discuss whether articles should be kept or not, and the admin who closes the discussion will look at the arguments for and against - it is not a vote, it is arguments that matter. I like the idea that it works like this. I may be wrong, in which case the arguments will reflect that. Should that happen, I will have no problem - indeed, I see it as a learning process, where I find that the arguments in favour of keeping normally include references to policies and guidelines that I might not know about, or how to interpret the ones I already know about.

Secondly, Wikipedia needs enthusiastic, passionate editors - who are interested in working on articles! I may disagree with you about this article, but I do like the passion you are showing - and this can be applied to future editing.

Finally, even though we disagree about this article, if in future you ever have questions or need advice, please feel free to contact me. I appreciate the fact that you probably wouldn't want to, but should you want to, I am always willing to help - if I don't know the answer to your query, I usually have an idea of where to look or find help.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're still not signing your posts

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]