Talk:Women LEAD

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted, because the article "credibly asserts its importance" with references from Forbes, Huff Post, etc. I can't see any promotional tone in the article either, though I'm open to advice on this. This article was tagged for speedy deletion only a minute after its creation. Can't you give me a chance to address what you think is wrong with the article? Thanks, -- Ruby Murray (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue with your rationale is that this isn't a actual forbes article, rather a blog from a fan of the magazine. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

And the rest of the references? All worthless? Ruby Murray (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This article should not have been marked for speedily deletion. New page reviewers are advised to review WP:BITE and the CSD criteria. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 19:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if I come close to biting them. Nominating a page for deletion is hardly biting.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion as spam, a minute after it was created? Is that your idea of friendly advice? Where's the spam? Ruby Murray (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to be your friend, sorry, I based my opinon off of the notability policies, the articles such as Forbes were by contributers and not actual employees as was Huff post, a self authored page by one of the founders. Also the list doesn't count as organizational inclusions of lists "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" It simply doesn't pass notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to improve the sources to address notability. But you still haven't answered: where's the spam? Ruby Murray (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)