A tag has been placed on Bob's World Famous Java Jive, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add ((hangon)) on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Mhking 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I picked something topical that I had no severe attachments to. This building has been a part of the community here for over 80 years and is a historical land mark. It is a novel design and style of architecture that is all but obsolete in our modern world. It has a rich and completely verifiable history. Some of the "tales" that surround it are a part of that history, though not everything I included was necessary. I know that. I produced more information than needed with the hope that those who are involved in this site or those who are involved in my own community will contribute and make the necessary changes. I was not given ANY chance to produce this defense or make any corrections, clarifications, amendments, deletions or further varification. I was not even given a chance to post the "Hang On". At this point, the criticism of my post seems to have grown even more vague. Rules are rules, and I desperately want to follow them. I would not want to continue doing something detrimental to the Wikipedia community. If I were I would expect such a speedy response to my actions. I can see the point being made, however it simply doesn't apply. I can and would like to try to continue this project, and would like suggestions as to how to better write something so as not to offend someone with such delicate sensibilities in regrads to circumstances outside their realm of experience. I thought I took great care to eliminate personal bias, and present the place as it is. There is even more information I would like to add. Social and economic fluxuations in the community that the Bar lived and struggled through, perservering despite the odds as the city became as slum, and still stands as the city is reborn. My personal opinion of the place is it is a dump that could use better management to maintain it, and help preserve it's historical heritage. That is a feeling of many in the community, and one I would also like to include in the article. This will give it a much more balanced appearance... As I am writing this statement right now, I can see that this is probably the biggest problem, is that it was presented in a totally positive light from an outsiders perspective. Or maybe not. Whatever the case... there are a lot of things I would like to contribute to wikipedia in regards to my community. I don't know how someone outside of it can determine the worth of something like this.
Thanks, oh, and forgive all the little mistakes and bad etiquette... I know I need to sign things like this and haven't done so on all, and I knwo most of the rules, just haven't "learned" them all yet. Thanks for your time and response, I do appreciate it.
--Bonzzort 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Whisky a Go Go, CBGBs and Paul Bunyan. Three examples I found in a couple of minutes off of the top of my head that seem to be good reasons why my article should be allowed to develop.
--Bonzzort 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)