Talk:St. Ignace: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Russell D. Jones
(Please Remove)
imported>David Finn
(→‎Comments: not a candidate for deletion)
Line 13: Line 13:


A bunch of pointless ramblings and notes.  It's going nowhere.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A bunch of pointless ramblings and notes.  It's going nowhere.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:That is often how wiki-articles start. Is the content false? If not its removal runs contrary to the spirit of being a wiki. Someone may flesh it out one day, If we were to delete every article that did not have anyone actively editing it, with the amount of contributors we have, we could safely delete almost 100% of our content. Is that what we want? Wouldn't we better off trying to engage the wiki to lay the grounds for completing this article? There may be almost no Editors, but there are 400 Authors in various states of activity in the History workgroup alone. At one time or another all had the idea that they might like to assist with things like this. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:16, 5 December 2011

This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A city on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Geography and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Michigan History
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Removal

Removal suggested by Russell D. Jones 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Editorial Council: Case 2011-xxx

Opened:
Closed:

Comments

A bunch of pointless ramblings and notes. It's going nowhere. Russell D. Jones 21:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is often how wiki-articles start. Is the content false? If not its removal runs contrary to the spirit of being a wiki. Someone may flesh it out one day, If we were to delete every article that did not have anyone actively editing it, with the amount of contributors we have, we could safely delete almost 100% of our content. Is that what we want? Wouldn't we better off trying to engage the wiki to lay the grounds for completing this article? There may be almost no Editors, but there are 400 Authors in various states of activity in the History workgroup alone. At one time or another all had the idea that they might like to assist with things like this. David Finn 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)