User talk:Kismetologist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have recently re-created the article Better Than, which was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please do not re-create the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, you may ask for a deletion review. - Lucky 6.9 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you create an inappropriate page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This goes for your previous contributions as well. - Lucky 6.9 19:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Because whatever it is, it appears to be original research, a text dump from another source and/or possible nonsense. You are free to request undeletion, but I have a feeling that the community may agree with me. The title hasn't been blocked, so if you can write an article about the phhilosophy in your own words, in the formal tone required and with verifiable references, you should be OK. - Lucky 6.9 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
No wonder I couldn't find references. That's the problem; this isn't the place to try and assert the notability of something that isn't yet notable. In other words, Better Than and Fortuna would both have to be well-referenced and in wide use before an article could be written about them. If the movements are relatively new and unknown (and I admit the Fortuna article brought a smile to my face), then they simply don't ring the notability bell. Wish I could be of better help. If you'd like a second opinion, feel free to contact another administrator. Good luck. - Lucky 6.9 19:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Good question; it may depend on what the undeletion discussion had to say about it. There's a neat policy here which simply states "be bold." I'd say a well-referenced and scholarly article would likely be a keeper. Only way to find out is to post it. Good luck! - Lucky 6.9 01:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
