User talk:Sjb72/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Please may I ask you to send me a copy of ...

... the recently-deleted Menlo Park (band), or to userfy it ?

With many thanks

Ekphraster (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

You've got mail!

Hello, Sjb72. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

John Christian Hopkins

Thank you for saving the John Christian Hopkins article from "speedy deletion"!Ssenier (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, just doin' my job! Stephen! Coming... 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephen, I would like to thank you for removing the request for immediate deletion from my John Christian Hopkins Wikipedia page. I thought that my writer was notable, and created his page as part of my American Indian Literature class at the University of New Hampshire. I noticed you suggests "PROD/AFD/Improve on my page, but I was unsure what that means exactly. I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction in order to make by page better.

I appreciate the help.

Best, Oliver — Preceding unsigned comment added by Othomas39 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Shorthand notes for other editors. Because I declined the speedy deletion, I am reminding everyone of the other avenues to follow, in case anyone still thinks the article should be deleted. PROD is short of Proposed Deletion and AFD is short for Articles For Deletion. The latter requires a formal discussion between editors. I always add the Improve bit as a reminder that deletion isn't the only option, and it is perfectly acceptable to improve an article.
Remember: just because I didn't delete the article doesn't mean that it is safe from deletion. The way to ensure that it remains is to demonstrate notability with good sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Stephen! Coming... 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

CSD on Tamil Nadu Entrepreneurship Development Institute

What exactly constitutes a "school"? The Institute is described as a society that provides workshops, not a school where people enroll in classes. Does anything that provides instructional workshops/seminars fall under the "school" exception for CSD A7? I've never heard of workshops being considered schools for that purpose before. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it was borderline. I had a look back through some of the earlier edits and it was described as a University, which was the clincher (all be it a clinch with a very weak grip). In cases like these, where it could go either way, the general advice is to not delete. If you think that the article should be deleted still, then I would suggest WP:AFD or WP:PROD. Stephen! Coming... 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

Talkback from Technical 13

Hello, Sjb72. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Sanicola.
Message added 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The IP creator of the article who also happens to be the subject of the article seems to think that "Once speedy deletion is denied, and an administrator has agreed it should exist" and "an administrator has already DENIED deletion on the grounds that notability has been established but suggested it be 'improved.'" as arguments why the article shouldn't be deleted. I've kindly attempted to clarify your edit summary in the discussion and if it is not too much trouble would appreciate if you could confirm my clarification and/or clarify more. Thank you very much, and I hope you have a very nice day. {{SUBST:Mots}} Technical 13 (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Charles Tagg

You deleted my grandfathers article. I realize he wasn't as important as people such as US presidents or as notable as other figures but I believe he deserves his place in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobjakielaszek (talk • contribs) 11:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can show that he was a notable person, providing proper sources, then I will gladly reconsider restoring the article. Alternatively, you can get the deletion reviewed independantly at deletion review, but you will need to prove that he is notable to them too. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOURCES for further information. Also, be aware that you are closely connected with the subject, so you will need to declare this - see Conflict of Interest. Stephen! Coming... 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

May 2013

I wasn't really trying to be mean or anything like that, i just thought it was kind of odd that the creator voted keep on an already very questionable page. Koala15 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just try and remember that tones of voice never comes across in text form, so people can easily misinterpret what you are trying to say. Stephen! Coming... 20:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

"Mister Saint Laurent" wiki entry

Last Summer, the Mister Saint Laurent page was subject to trolling and some vandalism. People calling for the page to be deleted without just cause. You stepped in, asserted notability and the trolling and vandalism ceased thanks to you. Now the page is being targeted again. The entry is vastly improved from a year ago and asserts notability more than ever.

A discussion is now taking place to decide whether the page should be deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mister_Saint_Laurent_(2nd_nomination)

You have a history with this page and your thoughts would be a great help. I feel the page has been unfairly targeted by trolls and now people who are not familiar with the page may decide its fate. Would really appreciate if you could look over the current version of the page and offer your thoughts. I know even a year ago you asserted notability, but now the page is even more well sourced than ever and definitely deserving of a "keep". Thank you for your consideration. Larsonrick25 (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but please be aware that I will be viewing it against the full criteria of notability rather than the lesser criteria requried for avoiding speedy deletion. I, like many of the other editors, know nothing about this person. This is no bad thing as it means that the article is assessed fairly against the criteria rather than from a skewed view about what you might have learned from non-notable sources. Stephen! Coming... 09:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look through, and agree that he meets the notability requirements; I have commented as such at the AFD. One thing that puzzles me is the accusation of trolls targetting the page. I have seen a couple of unexplained deletions, but nothing that would class as "troll-like" action. Could you please give me some examples of what you are referring to? Stephen! Coming... 11:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Petty Joy - Article

Hello,

is the discography and tour information ok? I added it again now.

And is this text ok to add, because the other user deleted it? But I think, it has good information.

Thank you for your objective view!

Kind regards,

WPia013

I have cut the text from the above and placed it here: User:WPia013/Sandbox. You assert that there is notability, but without proper references the article will be deleted. Have a read of WP:NOTABILITY to see what is required. See also WP:REFERENCES for how to add references. As the article is now in your own area, you are free to edit it as much as you like. When you think it is ready, let me (or any administrator) know, and we can assess it for moving into the main space. Stephen! Coming... 10:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, there are references on the article page itself. The Life and Career text is for information, as I saw a text like this on other wikipedia articles. How should I do references for biography(Life) and Career (some words ars links), when the content is only informative? Please help, I will make the article of "Petty Joy" better, but the other user just deleted without any statements. Kind regards :) WPia013 PS: Sorry for the problems, but I am new to wikipedia and I am still learning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPia013 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the deletions of the various sources on the page. There are explanations included in the edit summary, but the editors and automatic bots have used abbreviations which, unless you are familiar with Wikipedia, probably seem meaningless. Essentially these are removing the links to social media pages which are not permitted as references. You Tube and other self-published media can't be used to demonstrate notability; you need to use proper sources. WP:VERIFY should explain what can and can't be used. Stephen! Coming... 08:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, yes, I know that about the social media sites and didn't wrote any links to them in the article (an other user added them). My biggest question is, if the deleted text about the life and career is too bad for a wikipedia article, which was deleted by epeefleche. I think, it has good information about the artist in this article. Kind Regards, WPia013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPia013 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner - your post slipped under my radar! Ok, there are a few things here. I don't know why the text was deleted; it may have been a bit negative? Negative biographies are not permitted if they are unsourced. If you have a legitimate third party source to demonstrate that the things happened, then you must include the source as a reference. See WP:BLP.
If something has been removed and you don't think it should have been, then by all means put it back in. BUT, and this is extremely important, you have to be careful that you don't get into an edit war with the other editor. The proper way to question someone's removal or editing is to raise the topic on the article talk page, and drop a note with the editor inviting them to discuss the edit on the aticle talk page. Get their take on it, and come to an agreement.
What you must NOT do is do a back-and-forth removal, addition, removal, addition, etc., as that is a violation of the 3 Revert Rule, and may result in blocks.
If they don't engage in the discussion, and continue to remove your edits without explanation (do remember to check the edit summaries though), then you might want to get a 3rd party to have a look. The request for comment noticeboard is a good place for that.
Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 09:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Hello Stephen,

thank you for your answer. I really can't find any negative in the biography or career text. The source for the text is the artist itself, I asked for any information. So I just can reference it to the official website, not to an other source, but the official website is at the end of the page. The problem is, I asked the other editor a few times, why he deleted the text and what is wrong with it, but didn't get any answer, but a threat of blocking my user.

Is it able, that you can check the text and if you think, it is ok, that you can add it to the article again?

On German Wikipedia the text is perfect and before the deletion of the other editor, there were votes on the english version too, that it is well written.

Thank you!

Kind regards,

WPia013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPia013 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is, as far as I can tell, is that the material you added was unreferenced. Having a link at the bottom of the page to the website you got it from is not enough; we need inline citations. The easiest way to do it is add the website in the text in the following manner: <ref>www.insert-name-of-reference-website-here.com</ref>. Make sure you do that, and it should be fine. Stephen! Coming... 09:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ok, but the text for wikipedia has more and better information about the life and the career, than it is on the official website. So I thought, I cannot reference to the website. Kind regards, WPia013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPia013 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I have asked the editor who has been removing the text to give you a better response rather than just the templated replies. Hopefully you should get better clarification now. Stephen! Coming... 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, thank you :) Kind regards, WPia013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPia013 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

VECohio

Hello Mr.StephenBuxton, VECohio is one of the fast growing company in this valley its sister companies have a history of more than 60 years and it is providing many jobs to the people around here. I created that page in order to share the history of this company to the people not only around here but also around the world. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you, Regards, Vamsi Borra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vamsiborra (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The article did not show anything in the article that it was a notable company; Wikipedia is not a listing for every company that has ever existed. Have a read of WP:COMPANY and see if you can show that VEC meets the notability requirements. If you can show that it does ({{WP:VERIFY|including proper third party references]]), I will be more than happy to restore the article for you to work from.
Alternatively, you can appeal the deletion at Deletion Review, but you will need to show them that the company is notable too. Stephen! Coming... 08:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Also, you will have to rewrite the article in non-promotional terms. In its existing state it will be unacceptable even if you can produce evidence of notability. In fact, if you can produce evidence of notability then it may well be less trouble to just start a new article from scratch, rather than requesting undeletion of the old article and then substantially rewriting it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Delete page

You deleted a page for copyright infringement when it was obviously cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.191.2 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Check the guidelines on Copy and pasting: "you may not copy and paste text from other sources into Wikipedia". You can use the source text as a reference for your article but you cannot use it AS the article. In this instance the biography was copied in it's entirety. The fact that it was referenced is irrelevant. Stephen! Coming... 17:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Question about my page: Grilling with Rich

Hi Stephen,

I wanted to get your feedback on how I can get a wikipedia page about my website so that it isn't in volition of the policies that Wikipedia has set out. I am a bit confused on the section about articles can't be about websites, blogs etc... when there is a lot of pages about websites, blogs etc..

Any feedback would be helpful.

Thank you for your time

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmanwash (talk • contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Two reasons. Firstly, there was nothing on there that indicated it was a notable website. Secondly, the entire article read like an advert.
If you think that it meets the notability guidelines for websites and can demonstrate it, then by all means let me know and I will review it. Alternatively, go to deletion review and ask them to review it.
However, you still need to address the issue of the article reading like an advert. It may not have been your intention, but the language used read very much like advertising copy. This is the main reason why we discourage people from writing articles about anything they are closely associated with. Have a read of Conflict of interest and self promotion. Stephen! Coming... 16:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


Stephen -

Thank you for your feedback on the page. I was in the middle of adding content to the page and adjusting the content.

Here is are two awards that was issued to the website in 2011 by FriendsEat.com a website about Food -> Top 5 Food Bloggers of 2011

2010 - Grilling with Rich Named One of The Top 50 BBQ Blogs

My Alexa rank in the United States of Today: 223,266 According to Google Analytics to date I have had over 100,000 unique visitors and over 200,000 page views and loads.

I hope that this satisfies you that Grilling with Rich is a legitimate source for BBQ and Grilling news — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmanwash (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

In addition to these stats, I have written for various food websites such as the Daily Meal, The Today Show Food Blog; Grilling.com which is published by Kingsford Charcoal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmanwash (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it sounds like there might be some notability through the awards, depending on whether or not the people who gave the awards are themselves notable. The listing ratings are irrelevant and aren't used for determining notability. The fact that you write for
However, the fact that it is you writing about your own website is what I still have the issue about. It is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia, for all the reasons that are listed on the COI page I linked to. And there are loads more reasons besides - see An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
Ask yourself why you want an article about the website, and be honest about it. Is it to generate publicity? Is it in the hope of getting more hits to your site? If you answered yes, then you really need to rethink it.
Bear in mind that if anything negative gets reported in the news about your site, and there is an article here on Wikipedia, it will almost certainly get added to the article, and there will probably be nothing you can do about it.
Here's a hypothetical example. Let's say you recommend the Acme Wileycoyote Burnatron 2000 barbecue as the best purchase of the Summer. A week or two later, at a picnic for the International Orphan and Sick Puppy Society, several of these explode, injuring everyone there, and causing bacon to rain down on the nearby Rabbi Convention, who just so happen to be near them. The organisers of the picnic tell the reporters that they bought the units following your recommendation, and this is reported in the national press.
Even though you were not the cause of this, because you were named in the report, this will almost certainly get added to the article about your website. And it will stay there, as both the good and bad (provided it is properly referenced) is included to keep the article balanced.
To conclude, I won't be restoring your article. If your website is notable enough, then I dare say someone else will add it in due course. However, if you really feel strongly that the article should be restored, then go to deletion review and ask for other admins to review it. But I will be honest and say that I suspect that they will say the same as me. Stephen! Coming... 23:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Why was myPizza.com deleted?

Hello,

I just created the myPizza.com webpage, and saw that it was deleted. We're just trying to get the info of our website up on Wiki, just as our competitors Seamless, Grubhub, Eat24 have one.

Please explain. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meritonch (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The problem is that there's nothing there to show that your company passes notability guidelines. You have to have coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS) to show that you pass WP:CORP. It's ultimately not up to Wikipedia to inform people or to have a page on every corporation or website out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look at the deleted article, and Tokyogirl79 has pretty much covered why it was deleted. I would also add that the article basically read as an advert, so even if the article was about a notable company, it would have been deleted as an advert. Have a read of notability guidelines for websites and guidelines about advertising. Stephen! Coming... 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

you deleted the Shenouda Wiki page

Stephen,

You deleted a page I wrote up yesterday about a woman named Mary Shenouda. I am a big time paleo person and Mary is a well known paleo chef in that world. Obviously the article was very poorly cited but I was in the process of adding additional sources. I have no connection to her companies. I haven't even met her. I added the page because I love her blog and recipes, but more importantly she is a well known figure in a growing field. Can you undelete the page and I will add better sources. If you have other problems I would like to discuss them as I don't see this as promotional material.

Thanks,

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBellos (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Article has been restored and moved to User:DavidBellos/Mary Shenouda. I'll post some notes on your talk page. Stephen! Coming... 22:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Regarding Deletion of My Page

Hi Stephen, I have created a page on Mr Sanjay Singh, And I have provided the original and authentic content with the reference links. I am not promoting any brand or Products not doing any marketing stuff just written the biography of Mr Sanjay Singh. The reference link I have provided is from high quality News website. I am unable to understand why my pages is deleted. Please do the needful, Provide me the right suggestion what I do to make webpage on Mr Sanjay Singh life he is serial Entrepreneur, he established the two big companies.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjay Singh (Entrepreneur) (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the article read like an advertisment. Notability was demonstrated; that wasn't the reason for deletion.
There is an issue with your username; I'll go over this on your talk page. Stephen! Coming... 23:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Once you've sorted out your username, let me know and we can discuss how to go about rewriting the article so that it isn't promotional. Stephen! Coming... 23:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Deletion of My Page on Sanjay Singh

Hi Stephen, I have created account on my name as Pamela Giradin, Now I want to publish a page on Mr Sanjay Singh can I publish the older content which you was deleted or you can give me some suggestion in writing for new content which is easily approved by Wikipedia Moderators.

Thanks Pamela — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela Girardin (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Restored. See comments on your talk page on how to improve the article. Stephen! Coming... 09:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I see we think alike

Still unsure that he is sufficiently notable, though, but less promotional fluff and clutter may clarify matters. Less is often more. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Deletion of Before the Betrayer Article

I was wondering why my article was deleted from Wikipedia? It took a lot of effort to create that page and to write about my band. This was not an article written about another band or anything with false information, I am part of the band and wanted to write an article about it. Everything that was given to me such as pictures and such were given to me by people who have taken pictures at our shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BTB518 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing in the article to indicate your band was notable; see WP:BAND for information. If you believe you are notable, then let me know and I will review. Alternatively, go to [{WP:DRV|deletion review]] for an indpendant assessment. However, I would caution against writing an article about yourselves, as this is a conflict of interest - see [{WP:COI]] Stephen! Coming... 14:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Article about the Meliora Testlab -test tool

Hi

I was going to recreate the article about testing tool that was speedily deleted (Meliora_Testlab). Any insights you would like to give before creating the article?

TimoPulkkinen (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

First, check it is actually notable. Read WP:NOTABLE for details.
Secondly, make sure that it isn't promotional. Read WP:ADVERT.
Are you connected with the product/company? If so, don't write it, as it is a conflict of interest - see WP:COI.
Finally, I would suggest writing it in a userfied area, and then get it moved when it is ready. Less chance of it getting deleted! See WP:USERFY.
Hope this helps. Stephen! Coming... 07:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

About Rakesh Varre

Hi StephenBuxton, Pete aka Shirt58 here. I hope you're OK with my edits to the article - to be honest I added 'em so I could help out a new editor when the page got speedied - no treading on your toes was intended. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry yourself; I would never view edits to improve an article as "stepping on my toes"... if I did, I expect the other sysops would demand that I hand back the mop! Stephen! Coming... 19:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

public article

sir this is important article so not delete it pls publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.27.49 (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Which article is this? I have reviewed and deleted (and rejected deletion requests) of a lot of articles. Whichever article it is, if it doesn't meet the General Notability Guidelines, it will be deleted, regardless of its importance to you. Stephen! Coming... 07:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A9

Hello StephenBuxton, I respectfully disagree with your decline at Make it Rain (Courtney Argue song). The point to A9 is to delete music recordings by a not notable artist, if they are alone not notable for a Wikipedia, there works are also not, even if Pitbull is featured on it, as the notability is not inherited from him. This would be kinda different if it was just released because it would have the chance to chart or become notable, but this song was released almost two years ago. That combined should indicate a speedy deletion. I would PROD it but the creator article removed the speedy deletion tag, so obviously they would not wait 7 days and not remove it. I also do not think AfD is appropriate, because why keep it up and have a discussion, if it meets the criteria for WP: CSD#A9. STATic message me! 16:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but remember that the general Speedy Deletion guidelines apply here, not the general notability guidelines. An assertion of notability is all that is required to avoid deletion. Here the assertion is that there is collaboration with some named notable people. Any viable assertion of notability stops it from being deleted, so it has a stay of execution, so to speak. Stephen! Coming... 07:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
True that, but in all cases I have seen just having a notable artist appear on your song, does not mean the song should have an article, and A9 not apply, especially when the lead artist is not notable. Well either way, it is now up for AfD. Regards, STATic message me! 07:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
That's the thing about CSD (amongst other things) - rightly or wrongly it is up to the interpretation of a single admin to decide. I have seen a few articles deleted that I probably would have saved from speedy deletion. I am possibly a bit more inclusionist than others when it comes to assessing. Stephen! Coming... 11:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

3MB

Sorry to bug you but will you look at the third nomation of the artice titled above you deleted before? The results once again result in favor of deletion and for the page be salted because they aren't really notable, the page is poorly sourced barely sourced as it is. They're are barley a team. Per Generally acceptable standards for pro wrestling, fails WP:ENTERTAINER - recently-established team of "heels" with no history of influence/notability. Also, article's references (all of which emanate from the WWE) fail the reliable source standard of being independent of the subject. We can put the information in the singles articles. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you've sent this to the right sysop? Just checked through the entire history, and my name has not been involved with that article, either in editing or deleting. Did you mean User:Phantomsteve? He was the last one to delete it. Stephen! Coming... 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Hi

Please respond to my comment non-responded to comment on the talk page for RIDC. Thank you. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to have the copy of RIDC thank you in advance. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


Your question from the deleted talk page:
This page should not be speedily deleted because... the reasons cited were misplaced on this article since A7 specifically states: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". And G11 specifically allows for a very neutral article such as this with "An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". A non-profit that was created by a state/private partnership 58 years ago seems an extremely unlikely candidate for speedy deletion. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 09:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
For notability, it did not make any assertion about how notable it was. Nothing about media coverage, nothing about awards, nothing that showed it to meet the General Notability Guidelines. As for advertising, an article doesn't have to be about a business to be sound promotional. A lot of the text read as if it were promoting this organisation, and was not neutral in tone. Some of it appeared to be slightly modified text from the website, taking it dangerously close to [[WP:COPYVIO|breaking the copyright guidelines too.
If you disagree with my deletion, then feel free to make your case here, or take it to WP:DRV. Stephen! Coming... 10:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the discussion, is there a copy of this page I may sandbox for a week? I can debate your points but both our times will be better spent if I just improve it. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 10:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Bit busy right this minute, but I'll do it a bit later. If you haven't seen anything in two hours time, feel free to remind me! Stephen! Coming... 10:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Been about an hour, I went ahead and listed it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 1, a copy will still be appreciated however depending on the outcome, thank you. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 11:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Done; see your talk page for info about where the article is, and what you need to address. If you have any problems or questions, feel free to drop me a note. Stephen! Coming... 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Daniel Margotta

I didn't see anything that was not COPYVIO at Daniel Margotta and I greatly respect your effort to chop away the 99.9% COPYVIO and still be able to find the redeemable 0.1% without deleting the entire article. What's left may be useable as a starting point to create a viable article, perhaps with less of the COI issues that plagued the previous version. Thanks again for the nice work. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Revolve Robotics Page

Hi Stephen, Last night I posted the Revolve Robotics page that you deleted. This is a webpage that is intended to be informational about our company, history, product, etc. I attempted to make it informational. Can you please let me know if there were specific things that were posted that you deleted it for so that I can make sure that I modify appropriately when I re-post? Thanks, Marcus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusr5 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, it was an advert, and articles cannot be used for promotional purposes. Have a read of WP:ADVERT for more details. Even if you were able to rewrite it so that the article was more neutral in tone, I would still advise you against writing about your company because of the policy on Conflict of Interest. There are many directories out there where you could advertise your company, Wikipedia is not the place for it. Stephen! Coming... 16:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Tureck, Economic Collapse

Hi

I've read your guidelines on why you delete posts and external links and believe they don't apply to the two external links I supplied yesterday. One was a memoir about Rosalyn Tureck appended to the Wikipedia article about her. Among other things, it enhances one's knowledge and understanding of her philosophy, approach and habits; and it sheds light on the "revelation" she spoke of frequently with respect to the course her musical life ultimately took.

The other was a link to a webpage about The Moron's Guide to Global Collapse, a book on both economic and environmental collapse. This link was appended to the Wikipedia article on economic collapse. If you were to read the book, you would see that it discusses the root cause of our present economic crisis: The paradigm of infinite growth which cannot continue ad infinitem on a finite planet. It then encapsulates the history of how this paradigm played out with respect to the use of interest, the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the arrival of such figures as Bernie Madoff and other recent phenomena.

Both these links are relevant, on point and not in violation of copyright.

Thank you. Usernameusernameagain (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The links you added nothing to the article, and were bordering on advertising/promoting the opinion of one person who was not referred to within the article. As such, they were removed.Stephen! Coming... 07:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

my user page

hey why you so serious about my user page, it's my privacy got it?--KreanMek (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Traceability between accounts is preferred. However, I see that you have managed to get it deleted, so the question is fairly academic now. Stephen! Coming... 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted article

Why did you delete the Godoi Business Group Article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.13.129 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted because there was nothing to indicate that the article was about a notable organisation. See the notability guidelines for companies for more information. I would also recommend that even if you believe it does meet the notability requirements, that you don't write the article, as you are closely connected to the organisation; see the conflict of interest policy for more information. Stephen! Coming... 07:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Wiki page

Dear Stephen,

I am writing to you with regards to a wikipedia page that was recently filed under "speedy deletion"

On behalf of ThoughtBuzz, I request that the article be revived, as it is still a work in progress.


Nicholasfoo (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the article should be reviewed, I would suggest WP:DRV. But before you do that, please read the policy on Conflict of Interest, as you are clearly connected with the company, and writing about topics that you are personally involved with is strongly advised against. Stephen! Coming... 07:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Nicholasfoo (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for your reply. We are committed to provide facts about ThoughtBuzz on Wikipedia and are prepared with articles from the web that explains the function of ThoughtBuzz. Or could you recommend the next course of action?

Simple - don't post about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor is it to be used for promotional purposes. It sounds like you are being paid for promoting ThoughtBuzz on Wikipedia - if that is the case please make sure that you read WP:PAY. And even if you aren't, then the rest of the COI policy still needs to be adhered to. Also, if you have articles from the web ready to place on Wikipedia, then you should also be aware of the copyright rules.
One other thing you might want to read - Why having an article on Wikipedia is nothing to be proud of.Stephen! Coming... 10:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nicholasfoo (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Stephen,

So may I ask why do wiki pages of some Fortune500 companies exist? Who creates these pages? And on what valid grounds?

Those would have been written by people unconnected with the companies in question, and those companies meet the notability guidelines. Remember, just because an article on Company A exists, it does not automatically mean Company B qualifies for an article – see Other Stuff Exists. And something else to bear in mind – once the article exists, as there is no owner of an article (see WP:OWN – ‘’’anyone’’’ can edit it, and ‘’’anything’’’ that happens to the company and is in the news will almost certainly end up on the article, good or bad. Just have a read about companies such as Apple, Microsoft or any other of the really big companies on Wikipedia. They are balanced, not written as adverts and contain published criticisms about the company. Sometimes these criticisms of the company are so lengthy they warrant a separate article. Do you really want to have all that on the article about ThoughtBuzz? I can’t imagine that they would be too happy about it.
I cannot emphasise this strongly enough – you do not want to use Wikipedia to advertise anything. If you are truly desperate to get the article restored, then go to deletion review and make your case, showing why it is notable, and also declaring any connection with the company. But do have a read of all the other links I have provided you with first. Stephen! Coming... 11:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Hello Stephen

Hello Stephen, Im writing to you because of your recommendation to "speedily delete" the page "Prateek Singh". I have gone through the Wikipedia guidelines and I understand it has been categorized as blatant advertising. Thank you for your help as as admin of Wikipedia and I truly think you are doing a great job. However the page : 1) There Was no advertising of anything, If you followed the citation references, all the information was taken from news publications. 2) The article was not written like an encyclopedia: this is absolutely true, But I thought being a reservoir of information the article would slowly grow as more people would contribute to the article.

Stephen, I would really appreciate another opportunity to write the article. If you would be so gracious in helping me write the article again within the norms of Wikipedia I think I would learn something. I have gone through the guidelines and now understand why it was deleted. Today I learnt why Wikipedia is what it is.

Thank you Stephen :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekknight (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay; been away for Christmas.
My first question to you is this: Are you connected in anyway personally with the subject of the article? The connection could be through business relationship, family member or you know the person. In which case, I would strongly suggest that you do not write this article. See the Policy on Conflict of Interest for full details.
If you are not connected, then the next thing you need to do is check whether or not the person is notable enough for an article. Read the general notability guidelines to see whether or not there is enough notability. If there isn't then no matter how well written the article is, it will be deleted, thus wasting all your hard work.
If the person is notable, then you need to see about writing the article. I recommend writing the article in your userpage area, in other words a "userfied article".
The Manual of Style will help with general details on how to write an article (I must confess, I'm not very good at this!), but by far the best article to read is the guidance on words to avoid which will help you write an article that is neutral in tone.
Do please read all the links I have provided you with, and if you follow that, you should end up with a decent article. Stephen! Coming... 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, Thank you for your reply, I have a lot of reading to do before I start writing for Wikipedia. I shall read up and then start posting/editing articles that interest me. Thank you again for taking out the time to explain how things work around here. If I do get stuck somewhere, I shall be bothering you. Happy holidays and a happy new year to you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekknight (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries; glad to be of service. And have a Happy New Year to you too! Stephen! Coming... 15:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 January 2014

The Signpost: 08 January 2014

PDS & Associates

Hi, I just wanted some clarity with respect to the above mentioned page deleted by you. All of the citations therein were from reputed News sources such as the Economic Times, Business Standard etc. The page also spoke of a Firm that has been in the news in the Legal Industry in India, especialy due to its relationship with Ernst & Young and thereafter the breakaway from PDS Legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.60.32 (talk) 12:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of the articles referenced in the article were Press Releases, and as such cannot be used to show notability. The remaining ones were just instances where a member of the firm gave commentary to news items apparently unrelated to their company (such as this one about an Indian Ponzi scheme). As such, there is nothing in the article that demonstrates sufficient notability about the company.
If you do still believe that the article should remain, I would suggest taking it to Deletion Review, but you will need to demonstrate how it meets the [{WP:NOTE|General Notability Guidelines]]. Stephen! Coming... 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Deleted my page

My page clearly has importance to anyone with sense as it is a gang which has been involved in serious crimes. Please don't do this again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarlon (talk • contribs) 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The article was removed as there was nothing in there to show notability (see Guidance on what is notable for more details). It was also deleted as it was an article that gave negative information without any references, which if left could put Wikipedia at risk of libel. See WP:NOCITE for more information. Also, the article was based on Original Research, which is not allowed either. In short, there was nothing in the article in the condition it was presented to me in that would allow me to consider leaving it up for further work. If you disagree, then by all means take it to Deletion Review and present your case there.
One final thing though - please take care with your tone when writing messages on other people's talk pages. It may not have been your intention, but your message above came across to me with an edge of intimidation/threats; it certainly was bordering on rudeness. I would like to draw your attention to the rules of Wikipedia about being civil; repeated failure to follow these rules can result in being blocked indefinitely. Stephen! Coming... 15:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are clearly a cvnt who deserves to be kicked off wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarlon (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014

The Signpost: 22 January 2014

Drrty Pharms

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The lines that opened that article (which i saw from a link on facebook, before it was deleted) come directly from the artist's album release bio https://soundcloud.com/drrtypharms and have been reported in review articles elsewhere, making them valid for use here.

I'm unable to see the rest of the wiki page, but i believe you acted quite hastily. The article -was not- an attack article. It was just an article about a major pervert, a rapper who intentionally wallows in filth and self-degradation.

The deleted article (which I am not going to reprint here) had nothing in there to demonstrate that it was quoting lines from an album. The links were either to photos of someone, who may or not be related to the article, which did nothing to back up the article, or to someone's opinion. Again, nothing that could be used to back up the article.
The tone was that of an attack page, there was nothing biographical about the page, and so it was deemed to be an attack page. See WP:DUCK.
If you think that it was deleted unfairly, take it up with WP:DRV. But given the tone and content, I can see that it would be turned down immediately. Better to rewrite one from scratch, in accordance with the Manual of Style and guidelines on biographies. Stephen! Coming... 12:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Sriparnachoudhury

I noticed your warning on her talk page. She says she lives in Pune, so [1]. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

That definitely appears to explain her interest in these products! Well, she seems to have stopped now; if she starts up again, she can be blocked. Or she might come back as a valued contributor? Could happen... Stephen! Coming... 18:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

The Signpost: 29 January 2014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sjb72/Archive_7&oldid=1168308161"