User talk:Darshak Mishra/Removal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Removal {{Removal|open}}: closed -- move) |
imported>Peter Schmitt m (→Removal {{Removal|user}}: fix link) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
''Removal suggested by ''[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | ''Removal suggested by ''[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
''Editorial Council:'' [http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC: | ''Editorial Council:'' [http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:Removals_2012 Case 2012-001] | ||
: Opened: [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | : Opened: [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | ||
: Closed: Moved to user talk space and blanked. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | : Closed: Moved to user talk space and blanked. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:29, 8 February 2012
The {{subpages}} template is designed to be used within article clusters and their related pages.
It will not function on User talk pages.
Removal
Removal suggested by Peter Schmitt 10:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Editorial Council: Case 2012-001
- Opened: Peter Schmitt 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- Closed: Moved to user talk space and blanked. --Peter Schmitt 20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments
No reaction by its author. --Peter Schmitt 10:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- No reaction in four days? We shouldn't need reminding that getting a reaction is not always a quick process at Citizendium. In fact it is so common that we aren't even allowed to point it out when it happens. Four days is far short of excessive. David Finn 18:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
- The removal process takes time, too, and even after it has been finished nothing final will happen: All actions can be reversed.
- Personally, if a new user immediately creates such a page, and is not interested to see how it is accepted then I suspect -- and assume -- that it was a case of spamming.
- --Peter Schmitt 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Historic site?
As it reads now, this is not an encyclopedic article but an advertisement for a hotel.
If the hotel is in a transformed historical building then the building and its history should be the topic. If it was newly built in 1956 then the article should show why it is interesting or significant.
(In its current form it will have to be removed.)
--Peter Schmitt 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)