A tag has been placed on Coolboys and the Frontman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Marcostev88 ( talk) 06:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Thanks for message. Please note that although it was tagged for deletion as non-notable, it was actually deleted by me as advertising, althouigh there is no evidence that they are notable either.

I note that much of the editing has been done by accounts that have few edits elsewhere, and that the article had numerous tags for problems with referencing, COI and notability prior to its deletion.

If you have a conflict of interest regarding this article, you must declare it. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the band or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the band claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

• The article had no independent references at all, it was entirely unsourced apart from refs to the Hamish and Andy site, hardly an independent third-party source

• There is nothing to indicate that they meet any of the notability criteria linked above, if Hamish and Andy and Andy are notable, the band should be mentioned in that, they are clearly not notable on their own merits, basically a pub band.

• The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. Also note that many articles would have been accepted before the notability guidelines were made stricter.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. This unsourced article is basically a promo for the group
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply

It was not self promotion or advertising. It was notable as they are notable Australian comedians, that also had the band with other notable musicians. The page was linked from their own page. Just because you personally don't know of them, doesn't mean they aren't notable in their own right. They have been arguably the most popular comedic group in Australia for well over a decade.

I believe that your deletion was heavy handed and incorrect as you assumed it was self promotion, when it very much wasn't.

With the referencing, that could have been cleaned up if given the opportunity.

Basetornado (
talk) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Western Bulldogs, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Murphy and Jim Gallagher. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terry Cashion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Tasmanian Football Association.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi. Please review our policy on including the names of people charged with, but who have not been found guilty of, a crime. Thanks. — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 01:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have. No where does it state that it cannot be done. It just states that you should consider not doing it.

I considered it. I also looked at the facts of the matter. I looked at the interest involved. Basetornado ( talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The lead sentence should use extreme WP:SUMMARY style and therefore not give an exhaustive list of nicknames. For instance association football is known by many different names, including "footy", but these are not mentioned. Only two alternative names are given. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That's absurd. Are we trying to make an accurate page or not. Basetornado ( talk) 09:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You must be new here, the pagekeepers of the AFL article will not accept that half the population calls AFL, AFL.

Re scoring, not only are you adding unnecessary historical details, but the formatting and capitalisation is off (ie bolding the final score example). It's not a good look. "Traditionally the AFL Grand Final would be replayed if drawn, while Finals matches only began to utilise extra time in 1991. Although extra time for the Grand Final was implemented in 2015." None of this is relevant here. The section isn't titled "Evolution of scoring", just "Scoring". It should be described as clearly and as succinctly as possible, rather than get bogged down in irrelevant historical details, like scoring during the pre-season comp between 2003-2017. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 10:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The information you left also included historical factors. The ball line you changed also included historical factors. The scoring one? Because how the game is scored is different to how it would be scored in other sports, it felt important to actually include an example.

The 9 points thing? It's a form of scoring that still gets used. It's why I wrote "standard" game.

Change the formatting if you don't like the formatting. But you are reverting relevant information and leaving information that is poorly written, or doesn't actually give the reasons for changes. For example the ball line you left, besides it having historical factors, something apparently we shouldn't have. Also just states that it was for visibility. It doesn't mention that it's designed for night games and games in the afternoon etc. How it's written currently just makes it look like the AFL started changing it across the board. Basetornado ( talk) 10:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

You are right, I was too hasty in my reverts, as you have made valuable updates as well. I'll be more careful going forward. - HappyWaldo ( talk) 21:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank You. I have no issues with you changing things for the better etc. What I get pissed off by are when the entire thing is reverted, because you didn't like one thing in it. Basetornado ( talk) 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

A tip. For every edit you make, write an Edit summary. Edits made without Edit summaries immediately make other editors suspicious that something less than ideal may be going on. HiLo48 ( talk) 06:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. Can do. Didn't think it was neccessary for adding a link to the full page etc. Basetornado ( talk) 06:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe not always necessary, but almost always a good idea. HiLo48 ( talk) 10:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeronimus Cornelisz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marooned.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 18:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply