Talk:Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability/Deletion[edit]

Come on folks? This banner was added within a minute of my first edit before I could even add a single citation, expand the prominence section or anything. This is ridiculous. You role out this great new interface and yet you scare people away from creating articles by threatening deletion immediately? This important software provided by NOAA is being used to help try and understand where the oil is going with one of the worst oil spills in history in the Gulf of Mexico. It is free software available for anyone on the planet to use who is interested in understanding how oil is dispersing...you know, the primary energy source that makes our entire industrialized society possible? I think that is notable enough to have in the world's encyclopedia. It sure would be nice if editors helped make a good article rather than scare other editors away with deletion threats...wiki is not paper. Theflyer (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, you see. The article did not state that the software was provided by NOAA. We are getting way too many articles about applications made by some nonames with no objective other than to promote them. The fact is, as fast as it came, the tag I added gave you plenty of time to correct the situation (7 days), and you took care of the situation in a matter of minutes. So I've removed the deletion tag, and, as far as I'm concerned, the article is a keeper to be upgraded.
If you want to check what kind of articles I usually tag for deletion, you can take a look at User:Blanchardb/Prod statistics. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that there are those who use Wikipedia to just try and promote but those articles do little harm to Wikipedia. You tagged this article within a minute without taking any time yourself to determine whether the article should stay almost as if the assumption these days is that all new articles should be deleted. I didn't even have time to save a second edit. If I were a new editor, I bet that big scary banner and subsequent talk page post would have scared me right away. I didn't realize the criteria of starting an article these days required it to be fully formed, grammatically perfect and fully sited for notability with the very first edit. Theflyer (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Automated Data Inquiry for Oil Spills. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automated_Data_Inquiry_for_Oil_Spills&oldid=1199209758"