I have had my article removed, I do believe that was not supposed to happen. This is actual information. Thank you, sir.
I believe I need to add these tags next.
dated prod-Deprod-Oldprodfull-Oldprod-hangon
You need to add reliable 3rd party references to any article you add to wikipedia.--RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to let you know that I cannot speedy delete this article because it does make a statement of importance. However, it could be argued that the article doesn't assert notability, which is a separate entity. If you wish to pursue the deletion of this article, WP:AfD or using a proposed deletion is the route to go. Icestorm815 (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I appreciate your adding the tag to my NaPoWriMo article about the need for "reliable sources." I read the page on "reliable sources" and was left wondering how one can highlight what has been an active 7 year old online writing. It hasn't been noted in books or traditional resources, but has existed online all this time. I'm sincerely asking how I can reference this beyond making links to the websites and archives that have spoken to the existence of the NaPoWriMo project over these many years. Thanks for any assistance on this question. --Splendoroftheirroots (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new at editing for wikipedia and I can't seem to understand why Terrier Nation's page continually is proposed for deletion. Can you possibly explain this to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriernation (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately isn't sufficiently notable for a wikipedia article. Specifically it lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. The sources you've listed there are primary sources. Also your username is a problem as well. It appears to be promotional in nature. You should consider creating another.--RadioFan (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you requested that my page Nitric Iguana be deleted. My band is a group of middle school kids without funds for a website and have no other means of advertising or spreading the word about our band so we can get a gig. please let us use the wikipedia page as a temporary website until we have funds to get a real one.
please, RSVP to me please. Grungeboy1134 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote your band. There are a number of places you can get free webhosting. do a google search on 'free webhosting'.--RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe this article makes claims of notability. I think this needs to go to Articles for Deletion if you want a deletion discussion to occur. Camw (talk)
Hello, RadioFan! I am David Owens, KOPN's General Manager. My email is kopngm@kopn.org. I have zero experience in editing Wikipedia, and frankly, little to no time to do so. However I would like to add and correct content on the KOPN site. One specific is the KOPN logo. Would you please contact me? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avid Darkly (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point me to a URL with an updated logo, I'll be glad to update it. If there is other information that needs to be updated, I'm happy to help with that as well if you point me to some references I can use.--RadioFan (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MadeYourReadThis/Archives/2009. I have granted you NPWatcher per your request here. After looking over a few of your contributions, your talk page, and your block log, I feel you can be trusted with the tool. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Playbox Technology (+ Playbox TV) pages[edit]
Hi,
That was a truly speedy deletion !
I didn't get a chance to add that Playbox technology created "Playbox TV" (also deleted), a software package, enabling community, and lower end TV stations to survive and flourish worldwide.
The eventual point of these pages was to explore and explain how small/community funded TV stations with antiquated, labour intensive systems, were able to transition to computerised, automated setups.
I was then going to explain that start-up technology located in the former Soviet Bloc were able to conduct R&D, etc. at a fraction of the cost of their western counterparts.
How do I re-instate the page so that I can add the notability elements to it ?
The article was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). This article failed to establish the notability of this company and appeared to be nothing more than an advertisement. Take a look at WP:CORP for details, specifically about the inclusion of citations to significant coverage in secondary sources.
Looking at Google news, there are some coverage to pull from and this article has a chance of being notable but be careful to pick reliable sources and avoid those that are simply of company press releases. Also avoid blogs as they are generally self published and not considered reliable. Trade Publications such as Broadcast Engineering or newspapers like the Detroit Free Press are considered notable. If you cant find significant coverage for this company, you should wait to add the article until significant coverage can be found or it will likely get deleted again. The same applies for article on the Playbox TV product, siginificant coverage focused on the product itself must be cited to warrent its own article. You should consider including information on the product in the company article and create a redirect from the product name to the company name so readers will find it.
As for restoring the article you can request a Wikipedia:Deletion review. The article will be moved under your userid (something like User:Gordoux/Playbox Technologies) where you can work on it until you are ready to put it back out into the main article space. You can always request help by adding the {{helpme}} template, or you are welcome to post a question here on my talk page.
One last thing, if you have a close connection to this company, you shouldn't be working with articles concerning the company or its products at all. Take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more information there.--RadioFan (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to contest the deletion of Shanell Woodgett in the Wikipedia. If a songwriter with consistent credits in the top 20 of the billboard charts lacks notability then who is indeed notable? The article contains numerous references to external sites that are considered authorities on artist/songwriter credibility. Furthermore, Shanell Woodgett's name and work was already found in numerous pre-existing articles, so a page dedicated to her was justifiable. Although "being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person," the inclusion of a reference to her sister was necessary, however Shanell's contributions to the music industry are still significant despite the relation.Del N. Paulson (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the notice on the page and follow the instructions there. Sufficient references need to be in place to prove notability.--RadioFan (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you posted a PROD on the Brav Article. I also see that it was removed. I decided to place a speedy deletion request on it so that an administrator will look into it. Just thought I would let you know.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I am impressed at how quick you got to reading my page! I am planning on putting in citations soon so I'll leave the tag up for now but please don't delete the page itself. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, like hundreds of similar editors, monitor new pages to try to weed out the junk that just brings Wikipedia down in quality. This looks like something that could be made notable, but not with out references to 3rd party sources. The tag is a reminder to do that. It's not tagged for deletion and has been removed from the queue of new articles for editors to review so you dont need to worry. You'll have some time to properly cite it.--RadioFan (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not my intention to remove any of your work. In fact, I was in the middle of an edit when I got an error message about an interfering edit (yours?). Perhaps you should wait a few minutes before following up a new article.
In any event, I dispute the tag you added. Space Coast Area Transit is a GOVERNMENT sponsored transportation service in Brevard County, Florida. I do not see how a "third party source" can outweigh a government entity. It would be like adding your tag to the State of Florida page. Silly. Gamweb (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there no other 3rd party sources you can add? Adding a single government source does not relieve the article of it's need for significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Certainly someone else has written about this bus service? Certainly there is something else that can be said about it.--RadioFan (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was a test. I tought my internet was broken so i made a test page because is stood the page cannot be wiewed when i tried to create an other page. I didnt expected it too work. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no worries, it's tagged for deletion. If you blank a page you accidentally create, it will eventually get tagged for deletion as well.
I've provided the reference you pretty much asked for in this edit. For your information. Young Artist Awards are easily Googleable since all past nominations and winners are recorded on the internet at http://www.youngartistawards.org. You might want to do a quick google and add it instead of tagging them in the future. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO asks for "significant" coverage in 3rd party sources. Hasn't anyone else written something about this actor? An award will certainly help establish notability, but there's got to be more or this article is likely to be nominated for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I just started an article on Caressa & Francais, and before I had a chance to finish it, you marked it with "its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations."
I have now completed the article. As you probably see, that I have a long list of articles that I have started in the Lutheir Archetier section on wiki. This new article is a stub. If you would like to explain what you mean by "inline citations", I am curious to see it.Milliot (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YOu've got some bullets with references there but it's not clear what in the article they are references for. Click on the "inline citations" link in the tag and you'll find more information on what the standard is.--RadioFan (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided the available information on this historically prominent luthier firm Caressa & Francais. What is it that is not clear?Milliot (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, noone is questioning the prominence or notability of this company, the problem is in the citations. Lumping all references into bullets isn't sufficient. These citations are there to reference something in the article, you need to properly footnote the article to make it clear what these citations are referencing. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for details.--RadioFan (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have made the appropriate corrections, and would like to remove your tag.
Please check out the latest version of the article, and perhaps you can remove it yourself?
Thanks in advance.Milliot (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the footnote problems still remain. I see only 3 footnotes properly cited, what about the 8 bullets at the bottom of the page? There appear to be some very reliable sources there, are they not references for the article above them? Are you having trouble with {{cite}}? Can I help you understand WP:Footnotes?--RadioFan (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear RadioFan,
If you visit my user page, you can see the amount of articles I have started: [[1]]
The references I include in the article, shows the literature that contains information or examples of this firm.
There are books that feature instruments from their collection, and there are books that offer a small bio info.
The best references that are available to me at this time, I have provided.
I am not a novice at this. I have made more than 3200 contributions. Most of them have been articles that I started.
Again, please visit my user page, you can see that I have experience with expanding wiki.
Welcoming me on my talk page as you did, is somewhat of an insult.Milliot (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend to insult you and apologize if I did. I confused you for a new editor because listing references in bullet form under a references or notes section instead of footnoting them is something that new editors often do. The article still lacks footnotes, there are some but there are still has 9 bullets at the bottom of the article which are unclear where in the article they were used as references for. You added most of these bullets with your initial version of the article, did you intended these as a "further reading" section instead or are they intended to reference the article? Please read WP:FOOTNOTES and WP:CITE and let me know if you have any questions.
While I appreciate that you are not a new editor, your citations are not correctly formatted. The following:
"[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040216/ai_n12771775/ Jacques Français] was born in Paris, France on July 3, 1924 the son of Emile Français and Lucile Caressa.
should be formated like this:
Jacques Français was born in Paris, France on July 3, 1924 the son of Emile Français and Lucile Caressa.<ref name="obit">
{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20040216/ai_n12771775/ |title=OBITUARY: Jacques Francais|
last=Campbell|first=Margaret |date=Feb 16, 2004|publisher=[[The Independent]]|accessdate=2009-04-06}}</ref>
{{helpme}}
I'm having problems describing the importance of reliable sources and citing sources to Milliot(talk·contribs·count) concerning Caressa & Francais. I dont doubt that the article is notable but the references need work and I'm just not describing the problems in a way that is getting across. I've tried wikifying some of the references but the editor in question has reverted those changes. I've also pointed to WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTES. If another editor could assist, I would appreciate it.--RadioFan (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might get a response more quickly if you use {{helpme}}. GT5162(我的对话页) 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll head over to the page and have a look. ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RadioFan. Well done for spotting the issues with the article so quickly. Quite often, the process of writing a new article can be long and involve different stages and guidance is always good. I can see that Milliot has looked at the templates and he does appear to be working on recifying the issues - perhaps it would be worth just looking again in a day or so and re-templating if necessary and leaving a nice, non-templated helpful message with Milliot to explain in detail what's wrong? Thanks, Martinp23 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you are discussing me on your talk page and requesting help from admin, I choose to keep this discussion open on your page as well as mine.
I really think you have not heard a single thing I have replied to you. There is no copyright violation. I have permission from the Smithsonian Institution for use of some of their material. Citations have been updated and changed. You are not reading it or you choose to ignore it. As per wiki rules, if criteria is met, tags can be removed. Milliot (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently writing a response on the article talkpage, Talk:Caressa & Francais, for both of you. :) Give me a few seconds. ∗ \ / (⁂) 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you click the external links and the references before deleting an article? It was taken from a blog about the 1970's and 1980's new wave and punk scene in Liverpool. IDIOT. Francodamned (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article i created!!!!Francodamned (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete the article, I flagged it for an admin to consider for deletion. If you feel it should be restored, follow the Wikipedia:Deletion review procedure. Be prepared to provide some additional references however, blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. I personally found nothing in a Google book or news search specific to this band name. The common name will make searching very difficult however. If you know of a magazine or book that has written about them, it will make getting this article restored easier.--RadioFan (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radiofan - i was just wondering why i got a speedy deletion notice on my BMW Central Building Article. I will edit it if need be. However, all of my sources are cited carefully and footnotes. Nothing is copy written or stolen. I was just wondering if you could help me in any way with this
I added a reference link to Rollerboys discography at Discogs, so now there's added reliability for the facts. I hope this solves the problem. Skorpis (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of recordings doesn't go quite far enough to establish notability. Take a look at WP:MUSIC for information. If the band has charted, won some reconized award or been reviewed by some recognized sources, then that would be sufficient to establish notability.--RadioFan (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I also added links to compilations that have featured tracks, they have been compiled by Chateau Flight and Fred Deakin for Get Physical and Ministry Of Sound, who you'll know are quite famous. Thanks Skorpis (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, RadioFan. Would you mind commenting on my talk page about Misunderstanding of WP:PROD? I am in agreement with your prod of Shanell Woodgett. I restored it twice after Del N. Paulson removed it. I then commented on his or her talk page about it. However, another Wikipedia editor (an experienced one, unlike Del N. Paulson) removed it and essentially stated that I was wrong to restore it. This is what the above linked discussion is about on my talk page.
In my view, it is time that this article be nominated for deletion, seeing as I see nothing valid about this article remaining on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at my talk page about this is no longer necessary. That article has just been nominated for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created a page : 'Mason Vale Cotton' and you sent me a message saying you would delate my page because it doesn't respect the wikipedian laws. Which one ? You didn't tell me what's wrong !
Maybe it's because :
-he's not enough known ? that's false !
-I'm the only person who contributed to this article? that's not a big problem, I checked my informations on the fansite of Mason !
-I didn't respect his private life ? I didn't say anything about his private life !!
Can you tell me the real reason ? Respond please !!!
I don't want you to delete my article !
Thanks.
5_desperate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 desperate (talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the article has not been deleted, the article is being discussed for deletion. It will remain until that discussion is complete (usually a week unless there is clear consensus from other editors that the article should be deleted). Take a look at your talk page and at the article page again, there is a link on each to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Vale Cotton where the discussion will be taking place. The reason that this discussion was started was that the article currently doesn't meet wikipedia's standards for inclusion, specifically those standards as they apply to entertainers. Take a look at WP:ENTERTAINER for details. Notability is shown through references and biographical article such as this one need to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources, this article currently has no references. Also entertainers in particular can be shown to be notable through major awards (Oscar, Emmy, etc.) or through significant roles. Looking through his credits on IMDB this young actor appears to be somewhere between a bit part actor and a character actor but certainly not what I'd call any significant roles in multiple notable productions. If you have any additional questions, post 'em here.--RadioFan (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)--RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your respond. I understand that he is not really really known but he played on desperate housewives ! It would be good for desperate's fan to have an article on Mason Vale Cotton, MJ's actor ! I hope you won't delete it. 5 desperate (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5 desperate (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it all comes down to whether or not the subject meet's Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Perhaps there is a desperate housewives specific wiki that you could add this to.--RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to point out that this page has been substantially expanded, sourced and improved since you nominated it for deletion. Perhaps you would like to revisit it and post your thoughts at the AfD? ~ mazcat|c 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look. ~ mazcat|c 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to redirect that page to Call_of_duty_4#Multiplayer but I saw your merge tag. I don't see any substantial content to merge and the fact it says "Taken from" probably suggests it was a cut and paste. Would you mind if I redirected? --DFS454 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, redirect away.--RadioFan (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Radio Fan, but as the full moon and the army of werewolves has made my computer crash several times during the writing of this article I had intended to put my sources in the 'notes' and have Mr David's autobiography as the 'reference'.Foofbun (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, instead of creating a new article, please update the existing Saul David article instead.--RadioFan (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RadioFan. You recently marked Takeuchi Rizō with the Peacock template. Would you please clarify which portions of the article you feel are inadequate or unproperly sourced so that I can deal with it? Feel free to respond here or on the article page as you desire. Regards, Bendono (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phrases like monumental work, important books and Of particular importance are problematic. They are rather grandeous. If this is how this person is described, that's fine but it needs to be backed up with citations that also describe this person in those terms.--RadioFan (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that they were that inappropriate, especially for a 60+ volume work spanning decades of research, but they may be removed or easily reworded without any problems. Thanks. Bendono (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel those descriptions are appropriate, you can back them up with references to reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for the page I made (that you redirected). My bad. Accidentally wandered out of my userspace. ^_^ --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you blank it, I'll mark it for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks. Sorry, again. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 17:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for helping in the cleanup.--RadioFan (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and delete this article for now. I will have to get back to it. For some reason the reference tags are not working and that is frustrating. Dick Teresi is important because he co-authored serveral books. At least one of those books has been very influential The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? which Teresi co-authored with Leon Lederman who is a nobel prize winner.
Ti-30X (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
So, the notice that you posted to my talk page is very helpful. Whenever I decide to post a new topic, book, or biography, I will refer to that and ask advice if I need it.[reply]
Hiya. I couldn't find the copyvio in this article you tagged as db-copyvio, but I didn't look at every paragraph. Can you delete the paragraphs that are exact copies please, and if there are other parts that are close paraphrases, let me know? (Watchlisting). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The article is nearly 100% from the press release. The really blatant section has been removed and the rest has been tagged with a copyvio tag instead of the CSD. This is complete.--RadioFan (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radiofan, I did not sockpuppeteer the page. Someone else put my page up. But this is besides the point, I took it down again. The larger question is, I believe I meet the notability requirements. Who would be an independent source that could write a wikipedia article on me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonfresco73 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of that article indicates that it was created by your userid which is why warnings about autobiographical articles were placed on your talk page. Please follow the instructions on the sockpuppetry information on your talk page, we need to keep that information there. Handing this article over to an expert to create is a very good idea. To answer your original question, you could request this by posting to the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Law.--RadioFan (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep destroying my hard work and beleive me. I will never contribute again to wikipedia high quality contributions. And that's a promise. Im sick of fanboi kids destroying my hard work for the sake of nothing. The article about the software library was usefull to people. What was the problem about it? I mean who are you or those load of vandals who said that sohuld be deleted to figure out what people wan't to know or not? If you have nothing to do go out and play with your nintendo if you have nothing better to do. FYI i needed information about that software library I use for work (yes because unlike you we work) and you know what.. I wanted others to contribute as a matter of fact because i needed more information about that library. You know what I'm going to do... I'm going to write it again because i need the information. So you can have software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldoalvarez00 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you are upset and you are of course encouraged to contribute but it's got to be done within the guidelines. Please take a few minutes to read the tags that are placed on these articles and on your talk page. They give advice on what to do next and tell you what you can do to avoid deletion. The article in question, Convex Software Library was not deleted by me. I marked it for deletion if it were not improved within 7 days. Another editor marked it for immediate deletion which an administrator agreed to. Please read through WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. These spell out what is expected of articles. You can also request that the deletion of these articles be reviewed and they will be restored under your user page so that you can work on them until they meet thes guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I corrected the issue. Sorry about the hormones. Sometimes I'm a little bit compulsive. But with so much vandals out there you feel a lot biased towards beleiving many ppl is into that. Keep in mind that sometimes ppl can't even log in for a long while at wikipedia (It is my case sometimes due to several reasons) and one Week is maybe too little. Regards. Waldo Waldoalvarez00 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a number of problems with the article. It's unsourced and its not clear how this software is notable. I've tagged it with these concerns but until these are addressed, the article may be tagged for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently contributing to the development of the article about Radical Computer Music, I agree to your remarks, but this will all happen as I go along. I am in contact with Goodiepal about the issue and he is contributing with background info and sources. I hope you will allow the article to continue and only delete the article called Radical Computer Music, Mort Aux Vaches Ekstra Extra, which is a double.
The Radical Computer Music article could potentially be merged with the Goodiepal article, but I have set it up separately as I find it is too comprehensive a subject to be included in the biographical article. Die Luzi (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the PROD tag due to the fact that the band has released more than 2 albums on a highly notable label, thus meeting criteria #5 of WP:BAND. [2] -Binary TSO???
Thanks for uploading Image:WAMR-FM logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:WAQI logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kalel2007 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Done[reply]
All I want is the current article deleted, and to be off of wikipedia. I was not trying to commit vandalism, sockpuppeteering, or anything else. Please help fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonfresco73 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is an ongoing suckpuppetry investigation, I dont think it appropraite for me to take any further action with this article. If you would like to request help from another editor, please see {{Helpme}}.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just split Overshoot (typography) from Overshoot (where it was a stub). I’ve since added references, and as they indicate, it is an important principle within typography, hence I’ve removed the unreferenced and notability tags. —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, makes sense now. Rather than bullet the references, could you use footnotes?--RadioFan (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you say this article lacks reliable source, whereas there's a good deal already, contrary to articles like : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_Inter ... besides, you say lists shouldn't be used and should be written in prose ... how do you write a list in prose ... ??? And last, you deleted the part on the leading team whereas you can see that on a majority of articles ... I'm sorry but I'm not sure I get your point. I know the criteria for notability and reliability and the rest ; I spent my last summer trying to understand how all this works. But I'm afraid I don't really get it here. I'm sure this is a mistake and you can explain me what happened.
(Kavalka) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkaval (talk • contribs) 08:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The goal is to make every article as good as possible, rather than point articles that you feel are worse, let's focus on making this article better. There are a lot of references there but many of them are to primary sources or blogs. Hasn't this subject been covered by more reliable sources? Adding those will help demonstrate the notability. An article on a a streaming audio station is going to get more scrutiny for meeting wikipedia's notability guidelines than something like France Inter which is government based so it's best to provide good, solid reliable sources with footnotes.
As for the lists, is that all that can be said about these programs and these DJ's, just their names? I'm suggesting that prose would be better here because it gives the reader far more information. Rather than just list them, why not write about the history, how these DJs contributed.
Read over WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CITE for good information on how to demonstrate an article is notable and ultimately keep it from being nominated for deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'The goal is to make every article as good as possible, rather than point articles that you feel are worse'
Sure, but the goal is also to have the same policy from one article to the other, isn't it ? As for the comparison between France Inter and Paris One, we obviously don't talk about the same category, but they're both radios. Besides, Paris One hosts international guests and works with some of the biggest labels around the world. I know that notability is one of the key pillars to Wikipedia, and it's a good thing too. One more thing, let's take another example closer to Paris One, i.e. another streaming audio station : FG DJ Radio. I checked to history of that article, and couldn't see any 'notability' banner ever. So It's very nice of you to show a specific interest to deal with Paris One article and better it, but I'm afraid I don't really understand why picking this particular article.
Regards
Valkaval (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this article sorted out first, then we'll move on to others. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument in a deletion discussion and its not a good argument here.--RadioFan (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You know that this book isn't notable after 1 minute of research? Just because you have never heard of it, doesn't mean it isn't notable. It's a New York Times bestseller. I have now added that fact to the article, which I think should be sufficient. Webbbbbbber (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That thanks for including that. Had it been there in the first place, it would have never been tagged.--RadioFan (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I'll be more careful in the future... Webbbbbbber (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to Bridge FM Hospital Radio being deleted as it was an Internet station. The station is infact a Hospital Radio station and does not and never has broadcast via internet streaming. How do I get the page back up? Bobbles69 (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't clear from the article exactly what it was. The problem was that the article lacked notability. It lacked 3rd party sources. See WP:N and WP:RS for the guidelines. Before recreating the article, consider creating it in a sandbox area or under your user page (i.e. User:Bobbles69/Bridge FM Hospital Radio) this will allow you to work on the article, adding the required sources so that it can be moved into the main article space.
How did you find the UK Emergency Aviation page so fast? I appreciate your help in making it a disambiguation though. I only created to get rid of a red link. It was my intention to add in redirects etc as appropriate- is that the right way to be doing things? I'm unfamiliar with these fiddly aspects of wikipedia- I prefer to just get on with the business of editing! thanks for your help, HJ Mitchell (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we have our ways! Seriously I, like many other editors patrol new pages looking for places we can help push articles in the right direction and mark the garbage for deletion. You did a fine job of bulleting the items and linking them appropriately. I just added the DAB footer for consistency.--RadioFan (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heya....just curious, what is with all the prods for Hospital Radio Stations? - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 02:02
They aren't notable. They are essentially unlicensed campus radio stations, most dont even broadcast but are available only on the local hospital closed circuit cable and/or audio available bedside only.--RadioFan (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's find out if they do broadcast, because if they do, they would fall under the "notable radio station" rule. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 02:14
If you do find evidence of licensed broadcasting for any of these articles, please remove the prods. I didn't find any in the articles or the research I did.--RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UK is a little outside of my area of expertise. Why not post something on WP:WPRS before going PROD nuts and maybe someone can dig up some information from there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 16, 2009 @ 02:52
Hi guys. Here is a link to Ofcom and stations which have been granted long term RSLs:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/radiolicensing/rsls/longterm_rsls.htm
Maybe you could use this and if appropriate remove the prods you have placed on hospital radio pages. I think it would be a shame if a load of charities lost their pages.Arsenalgirl (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that ref to one article and will look at other stations on that list. Those with govt issued licenses are presumed notable. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a web host. These charities need to meet notability guidelines to retain articles here.--RadioFan (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You recently redirected a article on a Amityville book back to the Amityville Horror page. The sequels have seperate articles. This is for so If people want to learn only of the sequel it will be easier.--Darkness2light (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only a couple of sentences and lacked any references. Feel free to revert the redirect if you plan to add more details. Be sure to cite references demonstrating notability or the article is likely to be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you proposing that this article be deleted? (for the following reason): low wattage or closed radio system available only within this hospital. Lacks 3rd party sources, lacks notability.
Hospital Radio Plymouth also broadcasts via 87.7fm to the grounds of Derriford Hospital and obviously is fully licensed by Ofcom to do so. What do you feel should be in this article to back this up? (I feel it is self evident from the logo)
As an aside, hospital radio stations are charities run by unpaid volunteers - we already have plenty to do without having to worry about wikipedia entries being deleted for no good reason.
The article lacks reliable sources demonstrating its notability. Dont take the proposed deletion as a judgment on the radio service, it just that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Please read the tag for information on improving the article including the addition of sources like the ofcom license you mention. --RadioFan (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will add details of our licence and remove the deletion tag.
Why have you now removed details of our organisation's executive committee?! You refer to a tag that says wikipedia is not a directory - these details weren't intended to resemble a directory. As a small organisation I feel that these details are relevant to who we are and therefore also to the wikipedia article. Can you put them back?
Arsenalgirl (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These details are not encyclopedic. While they may be appropriate for your web page, they are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. While they may be of great interest to people close to the originzation, it's not something that others will come to the article looking for. As a comparison, information on the presenters is encyclopedic, it's what people might expect to find when they come looking for the article and would known outside of those closely associated with the organization. If one of the executive committee were notable, if they had their own wikipedia page then mentioning them in the article about the station would be appropriate but a directory of people basically unknown outside this organization does not need to be included. I'm sensing some ownership of this article here. Please be careful. As a volunteer for the organization I'm sure you have a special feeling for spreading the word station but wikipedia is open for editing by anyone and the goal is to create a neutral, encyclopedic article covering the topic, not to promote it.--RadioFan (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I do understand that the article is open for editing by anyone. Can I make a polite request though - if you continue to edit the article, can you please ensure that the changes you make are correct? I have had to reverse the edits you made to the awards section, as they left the article unfactual (eg Josie Scobling received the award for best speech package, not Isobel King) and there were some spelling errors also. Thanks
Arsenalgirl (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to indicate weather or not it is important on the article itself, but his name is on Several KMFDM articles, and I was sick of seeing his name with a red link So i made the article. He isn't just made up. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radiofan, all I did was put my picture up on the stub. Don't block it. I am looking tirelessly for an experienced editor to write the page. You have my word that I will not add anything else. But how can the picture have a conflict of interest?Leonfresco73 (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if you didn't edit this article about you at all. Perhaps you can find someone to help edit this page at WP:LAW. --RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The historical information at the National Assembly of Quebec (Assemblée nationale du Québec) specified in the references for this article is a reliable independent source for biographies of members of the Quebec National Assembly, which is a first-level sub-national political office, which is the Wikipedia standard for notability for political figures, see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. In this context, your {{notability|Biographies}} tag makes no sense. In addition, you have tagged this article with {{unreferencedBLP}} which makes even less sense because this person died in 1910. Perhaps you intended to place these tags on some other article? --Big_iron (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed a previous deletion discussion about this article as delete. However, it has come to my attention that some of the participants were sock puppets. In the circumstances, I would have relisted the discussion to achieve proper consensus had I discounted the sock !votes; I have now relisted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spider Rockets (2nd nomination) and am notifying you as you participated in the first discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We note with concern you have marked this page for deletion because: low wattage or closed radio system available only within this hospital. Lacks 3rd party sources, lacks notability, no mention of Ofcom licence.
Radio Enfield has broadcast for 40 years and very well known locally, having interviewed many prominent people. We also broadcast from time to time on FM, under licence from Ofcom and the various copyright bodies (PRS, PPL & MCPS) to cover local events e.g. Enfield Autumn Show.
What is missing from the article to add third party sources etc.? We agree with the comments made by HR Plymouth. i.e. "hospital radio stations are charities run by unpaid volunteers - we already have plenty to do without having to worry about wikipedia entries being deleted for no good reason." What harm is our entry causing the wikipedia website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioenfield (talk • contribs) 18:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the KOMY logo you added to its page say "KSCO"? That doesn'y make any sense. Please consider correcting, THX! Highspeed (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the thumb logo added to KOMY? I'm not following you.--RadioFan (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No (and thanks for adding that!), I'm referring to the File:KOMY logo.jpg logo you added to the format history section. The file name says 'KOMY', however that file is of a KSCO 1080 banner. Please view the KOMY page. Highspeed (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see now. That was the logo there, but it was removed without comment so I assumed it was a format/callsign change and moved it to the history section. I'll move it over to KSCO--RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find the government site, I couldn't find it initially thats why there are no references. I was just blue linking articles from the list of politicians drawn up by a Ugandan wikipedian on here. I did a quick google check and these names are notable. I hope he can expand these articles.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on their titles, I dont think there are any notability problems here. They just need to be referenced.--RadioFan (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{refimproveBLP}} tag on that page since this tag is only appropriate for LIVING persons. You already have tagged at least one other article in the same fashion and been advised of that. --Big_iron (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also call your attention to the section Wikipedia:Citing_sources#General_reference. Since the article in question is currently designated as a stub, the {{nofootnotes}} is somewhat questionable also. --Big_iron (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Designated an article as a stub does not excuse the article from being properly cited. This article has a single bullet point under references. This should be moved to a footnote.--RadioFan (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote from citing sources (the section already mentioned above): "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic.". That text appears in the same article as the referenced section about footnotes. A single footnote is not any clearer than a single bullet.
While the above is certainly true, {{nofootnotes}} encourages editors to do it the right way. Certainly this article wont stay a stub forever, why not properly cite it from the beginning?--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note for biographies, if the article belongs to a category such as [[Category:1910 deaths]], then it should not be classified as BLP. Biographies of living persons are generally held to a higher standard. Even so, there is a large edit backlog for BLP articles needing attention that goes back to September 2006, so adding dead people to the pile is not being helpful. --Big_iron (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for correcting this mistake on my part. I missed that this person was no longer living and added the wrong tag.--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
asserts significance with, "MRNB has toured in the United States and made two tours of Japan." Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other admins disagree and have speedily deleted this article though I see it's been recreated a couple of times as well.--RadioFan (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very strict in interpreting the speedy deletion criteria when I tag or delete. Others less so. Recreated, PRODDED. Not likely to survive PROD or AFD. Probably a SNOW at AFD. Asserts significance, a lower standard than notability. Dlohcierekim 01:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's pretty clear that an article isn't going to meet notability guidelines, doesn't it make sense to save other editors and admins time and trouble though? I've noticed a trend, particularly with the articles on garage bands, to make a totally un substantiated claim of significance in an attempt to avoid deletion. --RadioFan (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it avails them nothing but a brief delay. I don't like the wording of A7 at all. But there it is. Some people will list an article like this at AFD just to get a WP:snow. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 01:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, A7 wording is in need of serious help. AFD is a waste of time in many of these cases but I guess it's the best we've got available at the time. Thanks for your efforts.--RadioFan (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Audacia Ray, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --maymay (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag, adding more information. She had taken part in the Japanese famous year-end show Kōhaku Uta Gassen many times.--ACSE (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the note, the article looks much better now that it's referenced.--RadioFan (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, i'm confused. How many more references do i need? I think 3 is good enough for such a small page.
I assume you are referring to F. C. Rabbath. There is no magic number. Whatever is in the article needs to be referenced to verifiable 3rd party references or the article is likely to be recommended for deletion. Please read WP:BIO for guidelines on how the article should be sufficiently referenced to ensure that it meets notability guidelines. This article can still be improved. Also please take a look at WP:CITE for the proper way to cite your references. I've fixed up a couple for you.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So wait, your saying your recommending deletion? I don't know what other site to put up there. Can you give me an example of a creditable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnjohn9 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Also, please sign your posts.--RadioFan (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to contest your deletion blog because many in the film making community. (myself included) believe there should be page after discussing it on a board of judges at a festival at the Tallahassee Film Festival. --Shawnjohn9 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately a group of people beleiving a subject is notable isn't sufficient. There has to be significant coverage of the topic in reliable 3rd party sources demonstrating demonstrating this filmmaker's notability per WP:CREATIVE. Please share your thoughts on the deletion discussion page.--RadioFan (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the notability and additional references tags that you placed on Sqwincher because they are unnecessary. Cunard (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More references are needed to establish the notability of this product.--RadioFan (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another reference. If you have further concerns with notability, please take this article to WP:AFD. Cunard (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly note on Slieve True,Co Antrim. I declined your speedy deletion request on this article -- it's about a place in Ireland, and places aren't eligible for A7 deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was not at all clear from the original article. Couldn't tell what it was supposed to be about. Thanks for the note.--RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you delete the entry of a basketball player who has won awards in high school and college and is working on getting drafted into the nba?
I can't, I'm not an admin. I did recommend an admin look at it to see if it meets criteria for inclusion and they agreed that he is not sufficiently notable right now to warrant a Wikipedia article. notability guidelines for athletes require that they have competed either professionally (i.e. the NBA) or at the highest level of amateur sporting (i.e. the Olympics) . Gaffney meets neither of those. Unfortunately high school and college awards aren't sufficient. If he is drafted by and plays for a NBA, then he will meet that criteria and an article would be appropriate.--RadioFan (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The home phones page is going away. MLD7865 Auto (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why? Was there an AFD completed on it? --RadioFan (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No the phones are home and business phones, we are working at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel to clean up and expand many of these older entries... Also do you have any information on station CKY; This was Northern Electrics first radio station; 500 watt Northern Electric transmitter and studios were located on the main floor of the Government Telephone Building on Sherbrook Street just south of Portage Avenue. MLD7865 Auto (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Actually I'm ex BNR/Nortel myself (lots of people can say that these days) . Sorry I dont have any info on CKY. What other kinds of help is needed on the project?--RadioFan (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
don't know I just joined, and they just put the project page up. I have filled in alot of history this weekend, and was also looking up old tubes, old radios, TV, and phones. Family time now.... MLD7865 Auto (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC) (out)[reply]
Hi, you deleted my article due to you stating it was advertising. The article is fact driven. On wiki you have aritcles relating to companies ie, ICI, phillips etc. What is the diffrence between these articles and the one which I produced? I am just quite confused by this or understand the parameters that Wiki have or indeed a clear idea of what is allowed. Thank you for your help with regards to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Solutions uk (talk • contribs) 15:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to help if you gave me some idea of what article you are referring to.--RadioFan (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The World School Council IS an actual organisation. I have modified the link so that you will be directed to the offical homepage.
You state that this page does not meet notability requirements; please could you let me know it what way and I will ensure that the article is amended as necessary. Many Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattie92 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if the discussion were kept here--RadioFan (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing and editing articles for over two years. I am currently working on an article Fortune and Fate. In the past I have created several articles.
Today while the article I am working on is not one minute old it is marked for "speedy deletion". I find this offensive and insulting. It has made me pretty angry. I noted that it said "Don't take offense" but I do, precisely because the notice was posted before I have a chance to put in what is notable. This is ridiculous.
Perhaps it is the policy of the leaders of Wikipedia to now mark new articles for speedy deletion before they are complete and linked into other articles, but I find that hard to believe.
If that is the case could you please tell me who is in charge of that sort of decision? Is it a committee? Are they willing to listen to comments on that policy?
I think that all articles should be allowed to stand for at least a week to see if they mature and get linked into other articles. My experience is that if I start an article other contributors then jump in and expand it. This is one of the great powerful aspects of Wikipedia. One of its "inventions" which make it unlike anything seen before. This is also a way of getting a true measure of an article's "notability". Marking articles for speedy deletion so soon after they are created short circuits this process.
It was not meant as a slight and your contributions are of course welcome. To be exact, the tag placed on the page is a proposed deletion, not a speedy deletion. It can be removed at any time if you disagree with it, just add something to the talk page mentioning that you removed it and why you disagree. The purpose of a proposed deletion is to tag pages which an editor (me in this case) feels does not meet criteria for inclusion. If that tag remains for a week (i.e. no one removes it), the article is deleted. There are a lot of articles that are begun on Wikipedia and never completed. This is one way to clean out the cruft. If you plan to improve the article and bring it up to notability standards (particularly WP:NBOOK), please remove the tag and continue editing, however please make sure the article meets WP:NBOOK or it may be nominated for deletion again. To answer some of your other questions, no one is really in charge here. This is an open project that everyone is free to update Outright deletions of articles are only performed by admins however, which I am not one. --RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My anger was due to the fact that you ignored the age of the article. (And your response also ignores the speed issue.) I believe that one of the greatest features of Wikipedia is that anyone can start an article, and others will notice it, expand it, and fill it out. I have found this is a great way to get the information I want when there is no article on the topic. I am convinced that this is one of the identifiable unexpected features of Wikipedia that makes it a transforming technology. But this will die if articles are deleted at speed and not given a month or two to mature.
In addition there is something that, if not nasty, makes me feel as though it is nasty, in tagging an article within ONE MINUTE of its first posting. What is with that? Every article I have ever written is posted before I finish it. This is done on purpose precisely because it provokes others with expertise to improve it. (See above paragraph.) I am not going to enjoy having you dog me with this kind of Wiki Tagging. I, and I am sure other article initiators, would really appreciate it if you would wait a week to see if the article improves, acquires a lot of Wikilinks pointing to it, or gets a lot of hits from Wikipedia users (readers) around the world.
New articles are posted to the live Wikipedia site as soon as you create them, so new articles appear alongside those that have existed for years. Guidelines for notability and citation are applied to all articles equally regardless of age and it's the responsibility of the editor adding the information to properly cite it. If it is a work in progress that is not ready for other editors to contribute to, you should consider working on the article in a sandbox first until it is ready and you wont be bothered by any maintenance tags or deletion recommendations. Also if you add the {{tl:underconstruction}} tag to indicate that you are actively working on the article for a day or two editors recognize that the article is actively being worked on and come back in a few days to check up on it again. Please understand that books articles in particular can be problems on wikipedia. Well meaning readers and sometimes publishers and authors create articles to promote their favorite books but they've all got to meet WP:NBOOK and right now this article doesn't meet those criteria. This page was noticed immediately because that's that new page patrolling does, find the articles as they are created and identify problems. Also be careful not to own this article, all are free to contribute to it. Let's focus on adding the necessary references, to get it up to the point where it meets WP:NBOOK for now.--RadioFan (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you get up to on Wikipedia? Is it your job to just monitor and delete pages that people put a great deal of effort into creating? I have noticed many notices of annoyance on your talk page. If you search “Encyclopaedia” on Wikipedia you may see what an encyclopaedia is for (unless of course you have deleted that page for no apparent reason). I have used and contributed to Wikipedia for several years (under a different username) and I am disgusted that you have the audacity to state that people do not know how to use it or what it is for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattie92 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not my job. But yes I do volunteer, like other volunteers, to monitor new pages. I've also volunteered, like you, for many years and have contributed 50k+ edits including thousands of new. You are correct that it does generate some ire, generally from new editors who haven't yet read the guidelines. Most of these editors appreciate the pointers and produce much higher quality articles as a result. I'm sorry the AFD with World School Council has upset you and your partners. I'm sure your organization has its rules as well so please respect the rules here. Did other editors commenting on this AFD get similar notes or am I the only one?--RadioFan (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - comments from other 3 editors stated that they thought it was a hoax and that they couldn't access the website - The website has now been made available and as you said earlier today it does not appear to be a hoax now. hope this is helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.58.187 (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that did resolve the concerns about this being a hoax, you are missing the point being made by myself and the other editors. As my last update to the AFD indicated and every other editor commenting in that thread have indicated, there are still concerns about this article meeting notability guidlines. If you disagree with these concerns, here is not the place to argue your point, you should update Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World School Council with specifically how you believe this article meets WP:N. As it stands this article is likely to be deleted based on the discussion there. So far the only points made in favor of this article being retained are that it is "factual" which isn't going to help.--RadioFan (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the two sections below buried under the redirect on your former talk page where, because of redirect formatting, they would not be displayed. Yes, I think it's a little bit ironic that one of the two editors who accidentally buried a message there is apparently you. Enjoy. - Dravecky (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the images notices below? Those have been taken care of.--RadioFan (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:WCMR-FM logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:KOMY logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MadeYourReadThis. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I think the scare is notable, hence I have removed the prod. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tversl (talk • contribs) 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, an AFD has been created.--RadioFan (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering how did you check this article before you paste in unreferenced tag? I see there three legal sources so in my opinion this article is referenced. --Verwolff (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I meant to place the {{nofootnotes}} tag on there instead of {{unreferenced}}. There are references but they need to be in the format described here. Thanks for pointing that out.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks for fast reply --Verwolff (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help wikifying that stub I recently created! ---kilbad (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, I think it's referenced correctly now. Ianskipp (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the references, it looks much better. I still have some concerns about the notability of this subject however. Let's take it to AFD and get some other opinions on it.--RadioFan (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references you list don't help the article meet the requirement of significant coverage in 3rd party verifiable sources in order to establish notability of the subject. The first reference appears to be a blog which generally are not considered reliable sources and the second is a link to a site which sells the item which does provide good information but doesn't do much to establish the notability of the subject.--RadioFan (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the edit summary when I removed the misconceived tag. Wikidea 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I answer this question a lot: for cases, we use a citation (the date and a reference to a report, here [1975] QB 326) which gives your references. No notes needed here yet. Best, Wikidea 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this citation style, especially for an article of this length and of this subject. Footnotes are needed to show where these concepts came from and demonstrate notability. Without them it could appear to be original research.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure what you're after. The case report is there. In the case report you find the description of the facts. The "Facts" section is a summary of that. The same goes for the judgment. I've given you references to three books, with page numbers, which will tell you the same. I'm afraid I'm not here to jump to your requests. If you were interested in looking the book up in the library, then you have everything that you need. Wikidea 19:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While general referencing is accepted in some cases, I don't believe it is appropriate here and would like to see this material |footnoted. You need not jump to my request but are responsible for proper citation of any material you add. I did want to give you the opportunity to improve the references before removing any of the material that is not sufficiently referenced.--RadioFan (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this article for speedy deletion before I saw your deletion notice. I don't have any preferences on how this is handled, but I really don't know how to proceed now. Do I need to "undo" my tag? Feel free to reply here or my page. Sorry for the inconvenience. Tiderolls 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Leave your speedy tag and see what an admin thinks.--RadioFan (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems you had tagged Wikipedia:LPL Circuit not the article referenced. Now LPL Series is showing as red link. Maybe I should just relax a bit and watch things unfold. If you need to contact me, please do. Apologies for making what is probably a little into a lot. Thanks. Tiderolls 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not get what is wrong with my postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bug24 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not evident how this subject is notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article. Take a look at WP:N for information on notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your speedy delete request on the talk page in question of Priscilla Kincaid-Smith. In all due respect you made the speedy delete before I had even finished perfecting the page in question. Perhaps you should take a second look and consider withdrawing the speedy delete request or at least consider WP:AFD in which our peers can vote and I will not have to recreate the page in the future. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CBE is sufficient to establish notability and the CSD has been removed.--RadioFan (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The article is nearly 100% from the press release. The really blatant section has been removed and the rest has been tagged with a copyvio tag instead of the CSD. This is complete.--RadioFan (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Done
