Talk:Forever (website)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Anupmehra in topic Proposed merge with Glen Meakem
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forever (website) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=icon}
I have renominated it for AfD. because of no improvement from last time. SwisterTwister , K.e.coffman, DGG , Lemongirl942. Light2021 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I currently work for this company. It's small enough that we don't have a dedicated digital media person. What sort of changes are you looking for? -Fuzzy (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Glen Meakem
As there is nothing to write about this one independently. Merging can be good option as Page for founder is already there. Light2021 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge I agree with a merge -- HighKing++ 16:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge -- one article would be sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose merge per my rewrite. The merge nominator is incorrect that "there is nothing to write about this one independently". A merge to Glen Meakem would be undue weight. There is sufficient material for a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose You fail to delete an article, you don't immediately try again with a merge which would effectively have the same result. Anyway, ample information in the company article on its own, and ample references for that information. Dream Focus 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Article has been rewritten, and wouldn't be improved with a merge. Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge given the AfD clearly stated the concerns and there was sufficient basis to show nothing satisfied out policies; simply because it wasn't deleted is not a defense, exactly how anything here can be reconsidered for deletion and subsequently deleted, the new improvements aren't outweighing the still existing concerns. With a consensus to merge, this can counter any later attempts at advertising. As it is, this subject is mentioned as a basic at the founder's article. This current Forever.com article, as it is, largely outweighs any benefits, because the largest sections it has, are literally their advertised "Products and services" section thus violating WP:NOT, our policy alone. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clear concerns? The first nomination read, "There is nothing significant about the organization or website here." What is "nothing significant" supposed to mean other than "I don't like it"? The next nomination started, "There are [sic] no improvement from last AfD." This is right out of WP:ATA's WP:IMPATIENT, which says, "Remember that there is no deadline." The nomination goes on to call for a speedy delete without identifying any speedy delete criteria. The only concerns nominations like this generate are for the quality of AfD nominations. Unscintillating (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: Plain & simple: There are enough sources and contents in the article to justify a standalone piece. Anup [Talk] 06:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)