User talk:VioletVulpine

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, VioletVulpine! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pittsburgh Quantum Institute[edit]

The article Pittsburgh Quantum Institute has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability as determined by no secondary sources.
All the references are from the subject's website

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- I have added more citations from the former 'external links' section and from additional sources. VioletVulpine (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Quantum Institute[edit]

References from reliable sources such as newspapers. magazines, journals or books would help to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question that Pitt, Duquesne, and CMU are notable. That's not in doubt. It would seem that the PQI is working to build its brand. That's promotion. That's fine. The problem is the the brand is not taken up by the press. Science Daily doesn't mention it. PQI got a couple of mentions of the symposium in blog posts, but that's not remarkable. When the press takes an interest in the brand, there will be references. Rhadow (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax VioletVulpine. Things will come together. This may help: WP:MISSION. Rhadow (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Rhadow (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]