User talk:Behrboi

Inventionism

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Inventionism, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. P4k 09:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Inventionism

Inventionism, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Inventionism satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventionism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Inventionism during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. P4k 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inventionism

I can see you're putting a lot of work into the article and that's great, but unless you can come up with some reliable sources soon, then I guarantee it's going to get nuked. ornis (t) 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're going to have to do better than a self-published website. If you want the article to stay, you'll need a least a couple of reliable secondary references. For instance, a news article in a publication with a reasonably wide circulation, an academic paper, a book, something like that. First and foremost to survive an WP:AFD an article needs references that prove the subject is notable enough to merit an article. ornis (t) 09:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this, and thought it might be useful. ornis (t) 14:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]