This page is an archive of past discussions for the period January 2008 – March 2008. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ok, thanks. I will provide the category link. BamyanMan ( talk) 08:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have sources to show that he had solo shows, I will most definitely undelete the article. That was a mistake, and I apologize to you for the inconvenience. Thank you. Regards, Keilana talk (recall) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked you to modify, strike or redact your statement at the above. [1] I for one am very conscientious when reveiwing RFA's and I find your comments insulting and assuming bad faith at best, and an attack (bordering on personal) to the supporters at worst. Please reconsider. Pedro : Chat 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You might be interested in looking at Artists' Quarter too.-- Appraiser ( talk) 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Mimi Pond, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 04:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
A lot of fans suspect Mimi Pond is a pseudonym, because she hasn't been involved with the writing process since and she has never been mentioned by the Simpsons producers once. -- Scorpion 0422 11:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Mimi Pond, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Pond and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Another unsourced British sports guy, is he notable or not? MBisanz talk 03:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your query.
"COPYRIGHT
OlimpBase :: the online encyclopaedia of international team chess events
© Free to copy.
Please cite the source.
2003-2008
Wojciech Bartelski"
Humortueio ( talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007. Thank you. Burzmali ( talk) 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Doczilla ( talk) 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your information about Sergio Villanueva Fernández. In the lead, could you make it clear to a non-footballer why he is notable? Thanks. -- Bejnar ( talk) 15:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Just want to say thanks for your contributions and references to this article! Voorlandt ( talk) 13:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the sourcing issues on Economica. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Phil. That A1 rule also applies to declarative sentences with little or no content. It was up to the original poster to provide the minimum content required for a good stub, i.e., at least a couple of paragraphs. A couple of sentences are better than this. Heck, no article whatsoever is better than this. These sorts of empty articles are (or at least were) deleted all the time and, IMO, it isn't fair to assume that someone is going to step up and expand this. Besides, anyone researching this subject already knows what it is he does as ambassador. Jimbo Wales himself has lamented over this lack of content; we shouldn't have the article simply for the article's sake and I don't want to disrupt the site to run this on AfD. On the other hand, I feel that this is setting a really, really bad precident by letting these sorts of "nanostubs" stay. Sometimes, these can be redirected but it can't be done in this case. Result: We're left with a single sentence (which makes this site look bad) and a bunch of expansion templates. I know nothing about New Zealand politicians, but it appears as if I'll be expanding this myself...and I really don't want to. Thanks for letting me vent. Regards, -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You redirected Wolkonsky Serge to Sergei Volkonsky. Please note "Wolkonsky" and "Serge" is his own transcription, and his English books were printed under this name! So, please, undo this redirection.
Thanks, -- Mart071 ( talk) 16:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the deletion template from Nanahughmilleria. Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil, I am not sure the NY Magazine list of best doctors is a source for notability. Can you explain to me why you think it is sufficient? DGG ( talk) 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil,
Thanks for your contributions. I'm glad we were able to get the orphaning issue taken care of, and that you added some sources, but my primary problem with the article is that it satisfies no part of WP:MUSIC. Lack of notability is grounds for deletion per WP Deletion Policy, so I'm going to put the PROD tag back in place. Please review WP:MUSIC criteria for composers, and if you can get the article to that standard I'll welcome the changes. Cheers! SingCal ( talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Phil,
Apologies for my misuse of PROD. Somewhat silly mistake on my part. That said, I have filed an AfD regarding the article. My reasons can be found here. SingCal ( talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Burke's Boy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Burke's Boy.
Montanabw
(talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know I re-tagged this article. We really do not want to give every horse that wins an FEI four star its own wikipedia article, no matter how famous its rider, unless it goes on to do something else. Otherwise, there'd be a thousand new articles. it's the equivalent of, oh, maybe putting up an article on every winner of the Santa Anita Derby, just because they had a famous jockey or something. Not saying the horse wasn't talented, just challenging notability. Montanabw (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read up on WP:COMPANY. Having a presence on NASDAQ is not necessarily a criterion for notability, nor is it an assertion. -- WebHamster 10:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt I am inexperienced to become an admin. I hope that by performing more edits on Wikipedia in the next few months that I could possibly change your mind by my next RfA, possibly around May 2008. I hope you had the time to review my answer to Q8 on my RfA before the RfA closed. I hope that if your questions about my ability to uphold Wikipedia policies could not be proven to you with those answers, that my future edits here will help you establish that by my next RfA. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Most Phallic Building contest, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Phallic Building contest. Thank you. faithless (speak) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Peace | ||
I present this barnstar to Phil Bridger for reaffirming my faith in Wikipedia, and proving that editors can disagree, yet remain civil. Cheers! faithless (speak) |
Is this guy notable Matthew Freeman(footballer)? MBisanz talk 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that, even if I'm about to disagree with you, I appreciate that you gave a thought out response with policy quoted for your keep vote on the deletion discussion for Actors who died in their 20s. This discussion was frustrating me to the point of considering not participating in AfD anymore because all the previous keep votes seemed like knee jerk responses and irrelevant banter, with even an admin saying we should keep it only because the category was deleted. I wanted you to know I appreciate that and wish we had more editors like you participating in WP:AfD discussions. Redfarmer ( talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding this article and saving it from deletion. Well done! Johnfos ( talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If you still think those templates are not the proper ones, please consider doing something useful and add the proper one, 'cause this article is clearly not encyclopedic. In case you're not able to find the proper template, I'll prod the article. Thank You. Victao lopes ( talk) 20:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thought this article was earlier Speedy deleted for notablity.Please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moeed1991ahmad Sorry if I was my mistake. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 09:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It could be that scientologists prodded it, backlash from Project Chanology. Speciate ( talk) 10:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You untagged this article yesterday on the grounds it didn't meet the {{
db-nn}} criteria. You're absolutely right and I tagged it by mistake. You deserve recognition. Keep up the good work, --
ROGER DAVIES
talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Recovery | ||
For excellent and valuable work preserving many useful articles from the chop. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 18:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC) |
Is this rugby player notable Sam Faust? MBisanz talk 05:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Phil Bridger ... please see Talk:David Roberts (swimmer) and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?
Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?
Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 ( talk · contribs) 13:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried contesting the notability of this article the correct way, as it seems to me to be nothing more than self-promotion. You keep removing my tag and accusing me of removing sources which is simply not true. Why? 81.156.57.113 ( talk) 08:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
How does this article indicate importance/significance? See Talk:Susan Kuronen and someone's comment from May 2007. From your user name, I am assuming you are not even Finnish. This subject is not significant to us Finnish people, so I think it is even less important to people outside of Finland. It is quite easy to write insignificant articles to the English wikipedia because of its size and global user base. -- -Majestic- ( talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work saving the article. It's better to see one worked into shape than deleted. Cheers -- BPMullins | Talk 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are interested, there was a follow-up question, 8.1, on my RFA that I'm certain will alleviate your concerns about A7 tagging. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
About your removal of the prod on Karen Arenson - could you provide the references on the talkpage as to her notability outside that one instance? Relata refero ( talk) 18:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully with 40 supports, 13 opposes, and 4 neutrals. For those of you who supported my RFA, I greatly appreciate it. For those who did not, I'm also thankful for your constructive criticism. If you need some advice or have some pointers for me, you know where to reach me! A special thank you to Majorly for all his time and effort he has placed in my nomination. Once again, thank you all for your helpful comments. Now off to new admin school! Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 01:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for this - I did not know that template existed, otherwise it would have been the first thing I would have done! - Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion, due to the numerous issues. Bearian ( talk) 15:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, K. S. Balachandran, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. S. Balachandran. Thank you. Bearian ( talk) 15:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I took your advice and created an article. Needless to say, it's a mess. I can't even figure out why the references are all screwed up. Travis Grant Enigma msg! 21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, you might be interested about this afd. Thank you-- NAH ID 10:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Phil! A few things:
Unless there is any constructive things to be mentioned (without condescending overtures e.g., "...I'll spoon-feed you..."), I am done talking about this. However, if there is anything else that I can be of assistance with, please feel free to contact me! Cheers!-- Sallicio 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I moved this whole section out of the AfD (as it is an inappropriate place for us to have the discussion) I appreciate the sentiment. Just as an FYI, you might want to limit the friendly banter with those that you have an established relationship. We have to remember that others can only "hear" what is written! Cheers!-- Sallicio 23:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, as the person who prodded this, I just wanted to let you know that I don't plan to pursue deletion further. After I tagged it, User:Gene93k added enough information to make it a good stub, which is a vast improvement over what was there before. I agree with you that school deletions are often controversial, but I don't think this one would have been if it stayed in the form that I tagged it. As it stands, however, it's fine. — Gavia immer ( talk) 16:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for not deleting Vijay Siva, and being bold in making the necessary edit. It is a pity that the editor who placed the speedy-delete tag on the article has been assuming bad faith in trying to go through all the articles I either created, or significantly contributed towards. Still, there was an ANI pending against him. In any case, your action in this matter has been greatly appreciated, by both myself, and the project. Thanks again - Ncmvocalist ( talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - WikiProject India Assessment Department.
I seem to be perpetually hazy on the {{db}} reasons, so thanks for fixing up Sofie McQueen. Question: should the same be done to User talk:Monkey29? (db-attack and blanking) Not a rhetorical question, as I've got to wend to bed, so I'll give my worries to you. ;-) Shenme ( talk) 11:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Phil, I see that you have found some sources for this -- thank you -- could you please add referenced to them to the article, so it won't end up going through the deletion process over and over again until someone either adds a cite or it ends up being deleted? -- The Anome ( talk) 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added the searches to the External Links section for the article: it's much better than nothing, and may perhaps motivate someone with access to a library to come up with a direct cite. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
DR JHON SPENCER, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
DR JHON SPENCER is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (
CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
DR JHON SPENCER, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please give me the link for this article's Afd discussion? I don't see that in today's log, other places. Thanks Sudharsansn ( talk · contribs) 02:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously posted by someone connected with the organization and is blatant self-promotion. A speedy delete is entirely in order here. Your removal of the speedy-delete notice is without merit. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 11:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You removed the prod template I placed on that article. I agree with your reasoning that a team in the third level of the Mexican football system must be notable. However, nothing in the article currently says that they are in such a position. Could you please add this information, preferably with a reliable source? I did a quick Google search but couldn't offhand find anything. Cheers. - Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) • I'm watching this page so just reply to me right here! 15:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You replaced the existing article with one referring to another event (see the dates.) While the second event has enough of a record to be notable (there are CSA sources to confirm it), the first was not and fit the criteria for deletion. Do you intend to actually write an article or leave it as two sentences? (The ancient Chinese saying goes: "If you save a man from drowning, you are responsible for him for life.") Red Harvest ( talk) 19:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Phil, thanks for your support on the Chez Paul article. I'm beginning to feel that Wikipedia has a bias against history. Too much emphasis on notability is placed on what can be found in the internet, which hurts anything that didn't exist before the last 1990s. And also, Wikipedia used to be the closest form of workable Communism that ever was, don't you think? No, I'm not a fan, but it used to be a place where everyone was equal and had to come together as a community to decide what was right. Now I find myself, someone who is not a regular, who isn't known by all the other senior/veteran editors often simply ignored or dismissed. I agree that keeping Wikipedia as "clean" as possible is good, but that seems to mean we're missing the 2-sigma stuff that is important but isn't "George Washington" or whatever. Lord we've got how many entries on counties in England? Yet the oldest French restaurant in Chicago doesn't rate? I end my short rant. Will Hughes ( talk) 03:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Phil, I'm the author of the
EasyChair article. Thanks for your support, but actually it didn't help. Just a few minutes later I got the next request for speedy deletion. Now I don't know whether you are a fighter against speedy deletions, or whether you know EasyChair and agree that it's a notable topic, but maybe you could give me a hint how to prove the notability in an acceptable way.
Thanks,
Langec (
talk) 12:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I notice that you removed the PRODs from some of the few unsourced, inaccurate, incomplete and misleading articles on footballers created by user:Mario1987 without doing anything to make the articles demonstrate notability, or anything to improve the articles as requested many many times. Perhaps you are unaware that the creater of the articles created hundreds of other non-articles before he was banned for sockpuppetry. Perhaps you believe that articles that do no assert notability according to WP:ATHLETE or WP:FOOTY/Notability have a place here. Perhaps you like editors from Geman Wikipedia laughing at the slack standards accepted by English Wikipedia. If you are so keen for the articles to be kept perhaps you will improve them once I have nominated them for deletion. English peasant 17:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
For your compliment on the deletion page :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion of a proposal to merge WP:PROF into WP:BIO at Wikipedia talk: Notability (academics). Since you have commented in AfD discussions for articles about academics, you may want to participate in the discussion of this merge proposal. Regards, Nsk92 ( talk) 12:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I know; however, in my opinion it is basically the same thing for both living and dead people in terms of that specific guideline. For example, if my neighbour dies because he's assassinated by a terrorist, I'm not going to create an article on him. WP:INHERITED also applies; not every victim of militant conflict in the Middle East will be notable enough to have their own article, even though many people push towards it due to the current nature of the issue. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 12:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Google news to justify [4]? But I don't see any at all [5]. Are you sure you aren't confusing it with better known organisations with a similar name. -- BozMo talk 12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but I don't know where I'd begin. What is this article meant to be? And I have immense amounts of work to do already sorting out "... in English law" articles, not to mention dealing with the vandals and sockpuppets that assail my watchlist. Perhaps I'll do it in my sleep. -- Rodhullandemu ( Talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
So you're basically saying that all the news coverage of him makes him notable, despite the fact that it was coverage pertaining to his company and not to him personally? I looked through the archive, and there was a lot of recycled material, most of which had nothing to do with Kwatinetz as a person, and most of which was said prior to the company's formation, and thus was only ideas and abstractions and possibilities. MSJapan ( talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Shaikhul Hind, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaikhul Hind and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If you examine the contributions and warnings of User:Ffkarin, you will see that this is in all likelyhood an SPA dedicated to spreading spam about the business. Their behavior indicates spam. The article as written previously indicates spam. You may have meant well, but spammers need to be run out of Wikipedia on a rail. It's better to deny them recognition than to fix an article such as this. DarkAudit ( talk) 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A basic point is being missed here. Everybody is a unique individual, everybody is important. Nobody likes to be told they are less important than someone else. Rob Nicol may be a great guy, may play fantastic cricket, but according to this article, he accomplished nothing, except being officially on a team.
The burden of proof should be on the writers of the article. It's not job of an editor to do extensive research to prove that the person is in no way notable. (How would that even be possible, honestly?) It's the job of the writer to display that they are.
71.198.177.64 ( talk) 13:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you removed a speedy tag off of another SPA-written article that was considered spam by another editor. The article may, as you say, contain factual information, but it is obvious from the username and activities of the author, that the sole purpose of the Alensa article is to promote the website. No attempt is made to meet the guidelines put forth in either WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I would also like to point out that the author of the article you removed the spam tag from a couple of days ago, User:Ffkarin, had not only already been warned about spam, but after the article in question was deleted, they posted yet another spam article and was subsequently blocked. DarkAudit ( talk) 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice save. until someone chimed in about the NZ league, I was certain this was just another article written by the subject or one of his friends just to say they had an article up. DarkAudit ( talk) 16:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please go back to AHM (magazine) page and put your 2nd opinons on the page; as the page has been updated. Whenaxis ( talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
All though this article may not be a speedy delete, it should still be deleted. Now I can't nominate it because you removed the template. Mm 40 Your Hancock Please