User talk:JoanAroma
AfD nomination of One World Flag[edit]
I have nominated One World Flag, an article 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/One World Flag. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
September 2008[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Peace Action do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Barkeep Chat | $ 15:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Other than the very broad topic of "Peace," what is the connection of One World Flag and Peace Action? Almost all of your contributions have revolved around promoting and creating links to this site/topic and comes across as Spam. Barkeep Chat | $ 17:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of One World Flag[edit]
A tag has been placed on One World Flag, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. RayAYang (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Reposting and Speedy Deletion[edit]
To my knowledge the speedy deletion was based on the lack of a citation of a license. The Creative Commons license was added, as was a license via Flickr for the image. Other than one modification this had basically been supplied originally and this article was not slated for speedy deletion before. So there is already a discrepancy in evaluation of this article. This, to me, gets us past speedy deletion and back to any issue anyone might have had with respect to the non-speedy deletion of the article itself. There are numerous citations/references on this site and basic info stating its mission, the description of the image, its validity as a recognized international flag, peace flag, peace symbol such as one might compare to the Earth Flag, Peace symbol, Cadill's Flag of Earth, Roerich's Banner of Peace, along with references of known supporters, etc. There were numerous updates to the original posting in answer to the originally stated issues. The information is short, direct and non-partisan. Someone will have to fairly assess and elaborate on the cause for deletion, which I do not find has been valid or sufficient, especially based on those additions and amendments to the original posting which, yes, has now basically been reposted.