The article Planet Katie has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. -- MeropeTalk14:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in this article that explains why this website is notable. At present, it seems to be advertising for her website. If you can provide verifiable sources as to why this website is notable, then you can re-create the article. You may also want to check out WP:WEB, our notability criteria for websites. -- MeropeTalk15:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article you linked me to has assertions of notability: the subject has appeared in Playboy. The article you've submitted says only that it's run by a model (which doesn't make it notable) and that the model has a tattoo on her back. Saying it's "popular" isn't meaningful; you have to give evidence of that popularity. -- MeropeTalk15:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem to me that Planet Katie meets these criteria, I have started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.
Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Katie. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.
Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, an administrator will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. -- MeropeTalk15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- MeropeTalk16:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that part, sorry. On further investigation, the page at http://www.worksavvy.ws/finance.htm is licensed under the cc-by-nc-sa license, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's GFDL (the "nc"—non-commercial—part is the problem, since Wikipedia plans on a commercial print version or CD at some point). The first one is fine because it's under the GFDL. However, there would be a different problem if the text was replaced in the article: the page isn't a reliable source and can't be used as a source in a citation, so we'd need some other source to back it up. This doesn't mean it can't be put back in, just that it'll have to be taken out again if the specific details in that text can't be supported with a good source eventually. Feel free to put that part back in with a {{citation needed}} template after the paragraph's last period.
search for date of birth albert einstiein on google (or very similar search term) and it has al ink to that, Albert+Einstein, so i added a redirect. pretty obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbath (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~ to enable editors to respond easily. The page wasn't a redirect, it contained a link to the correct article. The search engine on WP is efficient enough to find the article without additional characters, as is google. (aeropagitica)22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not create pages like "Wikipedia:Annoying admins...." This kind of thing doesn't do anything to resolve your dispute with Aeropagitica. If you don't think talking with Aeropagitica is getting anywhere, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some ways you can get other people's opinions on your situation. If you keep posting disruptive pages as you have been, you risk being blocked from Wikipedia. FreplySpang23:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Themindset18:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking is not an appropriate remedy in this case, and would not be supported by policy in any case. However, wholesale copying of another editor's userpage—including userboxes, subpage links, statements about article contributions, barnstars, etc—is inappropriate. You may copy the layout of another editor's userpage, but copying the contents is confusing and misleading. I've blanked your page. Please consider reading WP:USERPAGE before you begin work on creating a new userpage, or ask an experience user for advice. — Saxifrage✎02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have blanked your user page. There are fairly broad limits on what editors can put in their userpages, but blatantly inappropriate material can be removed by others. Please don't replace your "you agree to send me money by reading this" text. Not only is it beyond what is covered in the policy on userpages (see WP:USERPAGE), but it could be viewed as an extortion attempt. Wikipedia doesn't need that kind of hassle. — Saxifrage✎07:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as I smell. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --ArmadilloFromHell 18:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC), Recent changes patrol
