AusLondonder

:: Hello, Your are posting a factual error that the articles in question were ''unsourced''. I can agree that they were ''under''sourced and could need improvement. I would be glad to improve them given a couple of days. However, I think it is not fruitful that they are speedily deleted and that editors are not given a chance to improve the articles. As mentioned, these stubs have been on the Wiki for about 10 years. While the notability guidelines set sufficient parameters for notability, they do not necessarily say these are necessary requirements. Nevertheless, I feel the approach of mass deletions harms the project. In my eyes, it seems like you may have gotten into a rhythm where you can not see the forest for the trees. [[User:Sauer202|Sauer202]] ([[User talk:Sauer202|talk]]) 08:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

:::I won't nominate any more for deletion for the next few days, to give you time to begin improvements. Unfortunately though you are wrong regarding notability requirements for organisations. Per [[WP:ORGCRIT]]: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This applies to all organisations. This is part of [[WP:NORG]]; "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose" Finally, to clarify, the articles deleted were in fact wholly unsourced. Some featured external links, others featured dead external links. That is not considered sourcing. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder#top|talk]]) 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 

== Editor experience invitation ==