149:
any kind of consensus on which gray-area material should get the nod. Even if we worked out some way to cull out the deadwood, many of our readers would set the bar higher or lower and think our standards were arbitrary. So we have to rely on reliable third-party sources to tell us what's notable, by actually taking note of it. These sources have been vetted in the forum of public opinion, and already have the public's trust. We base our articles on what they say so that we can borrow that trust.
153:
widely-known experts, such as local TV commentators or feature reporters, won't be weighed as heavily as better-known experts, but if you can find several of those that may be enough to demonstrate notability.) In any case, your article was just right in most ways: grammar, structure, style, neutral POV, etc., and I hope you'll consider writing other articles--with appropriate sources, of course. Knowledge (XXG) needs more editors with your skills. --
174:
249:
25:
92:
148:
You might also think we should only exclude ridiculous fringe theories and outlandish material, and include articles like yours. But there's much too much gray area in the middle, and we can't do that. The editors of
Knowledge (XXG) number in the tens of thousands, and there's no way we could come to
191:
status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient
140:
criterion. You've listed several impressive and interesting exhibitions it has hosted, thinking that that makes it obvious to everyone that the gallery is noteworthy. Unfortunately, that's not quite the same concept as notability. For notability, what we need is for somebody else--somebody who's
125:
Hello, JBecker88. It's true that there is no sales language in your article; I apologize and have withdrawn the characterization as spam. However, let me explain why your article is being discussed for deletion, since it seems to me that you may not understand what we mean by "Knowledge (XXG)'s
144:
You might think we should include articles like yours and leave it up to the readers to form their own conclusions about whether the subject is noteworthy, but consider what a disaster that would be. We'd have articles about every cockamamie idea under the sun, and our readers would think the
152:
So you see, we have to insist that all our articles be based on experts' published opinions. If you can find a reliable source who has something nontrivial to say about the gallery, by all means add it to your article's references and paraphrase or summarize it in the text. (Note that less
107:
133:
think of the gallery, or of you. In fact, from what I've seen in the references you included it appears that the company is doing fine work and providing valuable services to its community.
287:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
283:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
141:
well-known, considered an expert, widely trusted, and objective--to make the claim of noteworthiness (usually implicitly, by publishing something nontrivial about the company).
195:
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following
68:
this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
110:. 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.
276:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on
Knowledge (XXG) (see
272:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
58:, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
208:
292:
204:
224:
192:
information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
51:
for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
264:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
277:
40:
103:
145:
encyclopedia was full of hogwash. That would taint our good, well-referenced articles with distrust by association.
106:. I do not think that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at
173:
158:
99:
55:
44:
36:
18:
284:
136:
The main problem is that your article doesn't show that the gallery meets what
Knowledge (XXG) calls its
260:
212:
187:. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the
300:
232:
183:
115:
77:
154:
269:
273:
48:
248:
218:
59:
296:
228:
111:
73:
63:
32:
265:
66:
if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that
137:
54:
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
201:
Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged
43:
from
Knowledge (XXG). The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
91:
24:
188:
304:
236:
162:
119:
81:
129:
First, let me emphasize that our discussion is not about what
108:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Red Wing
Framing Gallery
247:
172:
90:
23:
39:, by another Knowledge (XXG) user, requesting that it be
196:
69:
223:. If you have any questions please ask them at the
291:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
8:
242:Orphaned non-free image (Image:RWFGlogo.svg)
87:AfD nomination of Red Wing Framing Gallery
169:File source problem with File:RWFG-2.jpg
207:. If the image is copyrighted under a
7:
221:after 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
102:, an article that you created, for
268:. However, the image is currently
14:
225:Media copyright questions page
31:Hello, this is a message from
1:
305:06:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
278:our policy for non-free media
237:06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
163:04:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
120:03:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
82:05:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
293:criteria for speedy deletion
205:criteria for speedy deletion
62:. Feel free to contact the
35:. A tag has been placed on
320:
217:the image will be deleted
213:Knowledge (XXG):Fair use
126:criteria for inclusion".
100:Red Wing Framing Gallery
56:Red Wing Framing Gallery
45:Red Wing Framing Gallery
37:Red Wing Framing Gallery
19:Red Wing Framing Gallery
253:
178:
177:File Copyright problem
95:
28:
258:Thanks for uploading
251:
181:Thanks for uploading
176:
94:
27:
274:You may add it back
261:Image:RWFGlogo.svg
254:
203:, as described on
179:
96:
29:
266:claim of fair use
98:I have nominated
311:
285:my contributions
256:
209:non-free license
41:speedily deleted
33:an automated bot
319:
318:
314:
313:
312:
310:
309:
308:
245:
244:
184:File:RWFG-2.jpg
171:
89:
22:
12:
11:
5:
317:
315:
295:. Thank you.
243:
240:
170:
167:
166:
165:
155:Unconventional
150:
146:
142:
134:
127:
88:
85:
53:
52:
21:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
316:
307:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
262:
255:
250:
241:
239:
238:
234:
230:
227:. Thank you.
226:
222:
220:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
190:
186:
185:
175:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
93:
86:
84:
83:
79:
75:
72:
71:
65:
61:
57:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
26:
20:
16:
288:
282:
259:
257:
246:
216:
200:
194:
182:
180:
130:
97:
67:
64:bot operator
30:
49:advertising
47:is blatant
297:SchuminWeb
229:SchuminWeb
138:notability
112:SchuminWeb
74:CSDWarnBot
197:this link
189:copyright
289:articles
270:orphaned
219:48 hours
104:deletion
17:Spam in
215:) then
60:WP:WMD
211:(per
301:Talk
233:Talk
159:talk
116:Talk
78:talk
70:here
280:).
303:)
235:)
199:.
161:)
131:we
118:)
80:)
299:(
252:⚠
231:(
157:(
114:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
